Closed magik6k closed 6 years ago
cc @kyledrake
We want to work on it this quarter. Ideally the result would:
Once there's decent tooling in place, the barrier to working on docs will be much lower, and people will be encouraged to write docs because the way to results is much shorter :)
cc @magik6k
Let's start adding content!
(I believe @kyledrake has some unfinished hugo/html business to push to master)
Whoops -- it's http://docsdev.ipfs.team. Fixing the typo above too.
A few notes about docsdev.ipfs.team:
Just a note and you might know this, but it is verrrry slow to load (8 seconds for the full page without cache)
I'll try to get some rough structure going soon so people can jump onto here.
Just pushed it. Go nuts!
Added some structure in https://github.com/ipfs/docs/pull/41
I’m closing this since we now have a rethought, shipped, working information architecture and site as of #68 and #80. There’s certainly room for improvements to the design or to the underlying static site framework (see #71), but I think those can now be handled in more specific issues with a smaller scope.
Feel free to comment if we should re-open it!
Currently the https://ipfs.io/docs/ page only gives some basic guide on IPFS plus some 'random' info in examples. It's not easy to get more in-depth info on IPFS without digging deeper into the github repos, something that requires more effort than many people new to the project are willing to put into it.
While there are many valuable docs, what is missing is a good place for them to live.
We need something:
I found few documentation engines that may work:
http://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/stable/index.html
reStructuredText markup
- http://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/stable/rest.htmlhttps://readthedocs.org/
http://www.mkdocs.org/
MkDocs is really simple to get going and uses markdown which is familiar, though it's seems to be very limited when compared to Sphinx. Using Sphinx would mean that we'd have to port at least a considerable chunk of MD docs to reST (there are tools to help with this) but it's probably a better choice for large docs.
What could be in there:
Roadmap:
Notes:
It will be a lot of work to do this well, good news is that a big chunk of this is already wirtten, so bulk of the work would be to get the information linked together in one place.
To keep things form becoming outdated we should have some way to track the docs, One way of doing this would be to put a footer in each file saying
last reviewed 01/01/2018
, then have some tool to tell which docs may need rewieving.This issue is mostly to bring back some life to the documentation, I'd like to get some comments on this before doing anything more in this direction.