metafacture / metafacture-fix

Work in progress towards an implementation of the Fix language for Metafacture
Apache License 2.0
6 stars 2 forks source link

Switch to next dev version, add instructions on releasing #289

Closed fsteeg closed 1 year ago

fsteeg commented 1 year ago

Will resolve #286.

fsteeg commented 1 year ago

On top of contributor and user documentation, we're now adding maintainer documentation to the mix. But it's of limited value to anyone else, so I think it might be better placed at the end.

Yes, you're right, I don't like it either. Should we move it to a separate MAINTAINING.md? And for contributor documentation, we could move things to the existing CONTRIBUTING.md, with a link from the README. We'd probably need to add some user setup instructions in the README though.

blackwinter commented 1 year ago

Should we move it to a separate MAINTAINING.md?

That's also a possibility, yes. Or creating a wiki page (like you're already doing for metafacture-core and lobid-resources). I don't have a fully formed opinion either way yet.

And for contributor documentation, we could move things to the existing CONTRIBUTING.md, with a link from the README. We'd probably need to add some user setup instructions in the README though.

There's probably a considerable overlap between users and (potential) contributors, so I would just leave it as is for now. Of course, we might want to target each audience with specific documentation in the future:

fsteeg commented 1 year ago

That's also a possibility, yes. Or creating a wiki page (like you're already doing for metafacture-core and lobid-resources). I don't have a fully formed opinion either way yet.

In other repos, we generally try to avoid the wiki to have all information inside the actual git repo.

blackwinter commented 1 year ago

In other repos, we generally try to avoid the wiki to have all information inside the actual git repo.

As I said, I'm on the fence myself. If there's precedent for MAINTAINING.md, I have no objections.

fsteeg commented 1 year ago

If there's precedent for MAINTAINING.md, I have no objections.

You mean in our repos? No, this would be the first one. But I think it makes sense and is consistent with the existing CONTRIBUTING.md. It seems to be used by others too.

blackwinter commented 1 year ago

You mean in our repos?

I was referring to:

In other repos, we generally try to avoid the wiki to have all information inside the actual git repo.

But it's fine, go ahead.