adamlui
commented
1 month ago Sup @Robson
Thank you for the idea.
You're welcome
this feels much closer to a list (or a sitemap, perhaps) than a readme
Your README.md is also a list/sitemap, do you not consider it Awesome by your sample metrics "images, screenshots, GIFs, text formatting, etc."?
The header is great, but it's the same as half the readmes that we link to.
Exactly, the header should at least be great for a README to be awesome. If half the readmes shared great footers, why should it suddenly be a disqualifier?
Then the rest of the readme is a list.
Indeed it is a beautiful list
Maybe I'm being a bit too traditionalist because my expectation is that a readme will primarily be something that is read, rather than links to other places.
The list contains highly readable descriptions
I'm just not sold on it being the type of readme that we include here and I don't know what value this would add to our repository
Your repo is "a curated list of awesome READMEs" so you shouldn't merge if you don't find it awesome (especially if curation is intended to be unilateral) but you suggested it serves no value instead, strangely on the basis it's not "traditional" i.e. no other monorepo exists that also need this-format README.md for inspiration (which is the value this repo is supposed to provide, inspire w/ awesome README template) which is simply untrue
This is not in any way a fault of the readme, it's just a compatibility thing.
Your repo becomes less compatible if you limit the types of repos authors can draw inspiration from btw
If we do add this, I would recommend striking the word "Striking" from the commit, to make the wording consistent with other entries.
How come? Other entries for header repetitively copy/paste each other's "Project logo, clear description" instead, you mean make it like that? Also remember your earlier complaint regarded "half" of entries having awesome headers as if a shared trait is somehow bad? In what way should this unique two-word phrase be replaced to share trait instead, also how come it's good in this case but bad in the other?
Thank you for the idea.
This is nicely made and helpful for people that want to install these extensions, but this feels much closer to a list (or a sitemap, perhaps) than a readme. The header is great, but it's the same as half the readmes that we link to. Then the rest of the readme is a list. Maybe I'm being a bit too traditionalist because my expectation is that a readme will primarily be something that is read, rather than links to other places.
To be clear: there's nothing wrong with the readme. It's a high-quality readme, which has obviously been constructed with care. I'm just not sold on it being the type of readme that we include here and I don't know what value this would add to our repository. This is not in any way a fault of the readme, it's just a compatibility thing.
I'll leave this open for now, because I'm interested in any thoughts you have.
If we do add this, I would recommend striking the word "Striking" from the commit, to make the wording consistent with other entries.