Updated the Repo Readme

[torch2424]

closes #45

Added everything we chatted about on slack, and made it look much more inviting and fun!

See below:

[davidnuon]

A few suggestions:

• I would refrain from writing in the first person in the readme
• Change MacOSX → OS X and a linux distrubition → Linux

I'll do a more thorough sweep later tonight if someone else doesn't do so before then.

Looks good so far!

[torch2424]

@davidnuon alright sounds good! I shall wait until you do your full sweep to fix those things up. But if you would like, I would be more than happy for you to jump in there and clean up the small issues

[davidnuon]

@torch2424 I don't understand the guide you linked in the readme...why does a new contributor need to install Rails to setup Jekyll?

[poproar]

I do not think a this is necessary for the readme. I suggest that this is more appropriate for the wiki and perhaps a link from the readme. The member pages is a great way to introduce members to the group and git (if they are unfamiliar). I would consider the question "what is the purpose of this repo? Am I contributing to the evolution of the website or am I just looking to be a part of something bigger than myself and wanting to be listed on a member page?" I think installing a local jekyll project may be slightly off-putting for some users but perhaps they would appreciate the opportunity to collaborate using git. I think some of these specifics could be amended to the wiki with a link to them in the README. I would also include a link to the code of conduct unless this will be added directly to the site.

I really like the gif because it does remind me that this repo is for the website. @torch2424 I appreciate all of your effort and enthusiasm and find it encouraging.

[torch2424]

@davidnuon I added those as not all members I feel like will not know how to install rails or jekyll, and want to contribute to the site and make it better.

After reading your comment some more, it seems you are suggesting jekyll does not require ruby? Unless I am mistaken, (As I am not a ruby developer, this website is my first REAL time using ruby/jekyll), Jekyll is set up using ruby gems, as stated on their website:

 $ gem install jekyll
 $ jekyll new my-awesome-site
 $ cd my-awesome-site
/my-awesome-site $ jekyll serve

And to use ruby gems (Which is also required by bundler), it is a "Package manager for ruby", which I am assuming you would need ruby to install (From after I did my research on fixing my developer environment)

Like I said before, I dont know much ruby, but these were the steps I took from after I re-install Elementary to serving and developing locally on the site

[torch2424]

@poproar I agree maybe the readme isn't the best place for developer enviornment instructions, but I have always REALLY appreciated when readme's offer them.

Perhaps placing it in the wiki is the way to go, and would be really cool and efficient, and it is something I agree with.

And I see what you are saying with not installing jekyll, simply because it is less work, but I personally made sure I could see my changes before making my PR, perhaps maybe because I had to make sure I could see my changes before commiting them haha.

And I would appreciate (As you suggested) A link to the code of conduct and development environment instructions linked, as I feel like they are nice to have offered :

And yes, I love it when repo's offer a taste of what your getting in to, without actually having to set things up to try it out. And you're welcome, I hope we can all start collaborating more :)

[rogerhoward]

@torch2424 Jekyll depends on Ruby, yes, but not on "Ruby on Rails" - the DigitalOcean guide you link to is about installing the full Ruby on Rails stack, which is unnecessary for Jekyll work.

Really, all OSX versions and most Linux distros come with an adequate install of Ruby to use with Jekyll. At most, you may need an "apt-get install ruby-full" on Debian/Ubuntu.

[torch2424]

@rogerhoward Oh, I did not know ruby and rails were too completely different things, I thought they simply went hand in hand with one another. Kinda like React and Flux were. Would you mind explaining that to me next code and coffee? My ruby knowledge is quite limited sadly.

And I wish an apt-get install ruby-full on Ubuntu would work, since ubuntu packages are extremely stable, they get outdated, and the current version of ubuntu ruby is v1.8 (http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=ruby-full) Where Jekyll requires >= 2.0 . Which began my development environment woes..

Perhaps I am being too new user friendly? or is my section simply flawed?

[rogerhoward]

It's easy - Ruby is a programming language, like Python, JavaScript or PHP. Rails is a Web framework, like Django (Python), Node (JavaScript), or Laravel (PHP).

As for installing Ruby >2, you're right - try using rvm instead:

curl -sSL https://rvm.io/mpapis.asc | gpg --import -
curl -sSL https://get.rvm.io | bash -s stable --ruby

[rogerhoward]

FWIW, these things aren't all alike. Node is a bit less of a framework than a runtime, with Express being a little more comparable. In any case, Rails is an opinionated web framework written in (and for) Ruby.

[torch2424]

@rogerhoward then why is ruby ON rails, and not rails in ruby? hahahahaha but thank you for the explanation. it was quite simple and easy to understand haha.

And I personally had a lot of trouble with rvm, but I would agree it is ALOT more simple to use and set up than rbenv.

[rogerhoward]

Cuz Ruby went places on Rails...

[torch2424]

@rogerhoward makes sense :)

[rogerhoward]

FWIW, I think some of this content will be better on actual site pages than in the README, so it's visible on www.codeandcoffeelb.org as well. That said, this is a great start and it's trivially easy to add a page with this content when we're done editing.

[torch2424]

Awesome! I am glad to hear! I would LOVE to see this integrated into it's own page. It'd also be cool if we could possibly provide a link to said page on the readme? If not it is cool, maybe I just have the wrong impression about what readmes do and should accomplish. But either way, I am glad to hear it is worth something and appreciated :)

[rogerhoward]

For software projects, a more thorough readme with references to many of these elements is common/useful - however, since this is a Website, that's an even more accessible place to host this content.. in effect the readme is buried (on github, out of the way for many) compared to just posting it on the website.

[torch2424]

@rogerhoward were you referring to my statement: "It'd also be cool if we could possibly provide a link to said page on the readme?". By that I meant yes, we place some build/install instructions for contributing on the actual website site. and lets say, someone comes across the repo, without seeing the website first, and can be informed that build instructions are on the actual website if they would like to contribute, by simple a link to the website containing them, if they haven't already seen the website.

If that is doing too much, I'd understand. And I apologies if I am being a little to debate-y or misunderstanding, I am still getting use to everyone's github vernacular haha!

[rogerhoward]

I was just extending my comments to note that while some of what you're suggesting makes sense in a software project, that we might think about this differently since it is a Website. We may not need to use a repo-level README or wiki in many instances, because we can just publish the content on the site itself.

For many projects that's not the case. Here, I think it is.

[torch2424]

@rogerhoward Oh alright, makes sense, I understand. would you like to (or me), create some new pages on the website then?

[torch2424]

After @rogerhoward 's changes and a discussion of this on slack, we decided that this is ready to be pulled. If @karimamer or @davidnuon would be so kind :)

[karimamer]

:+1:

[rogerhoward]

:100: