Closed faiq closed 9 years ago
TL;DR I totally agree
I had been thinking of this as "the new URL we send people to when they need support".
But once npm report
lands, and assuming the endpoint is npmjs.org hosted (#9) then the user's experience will be:
$ npm foo bar baz
npm ERR! npm failed ...
npm ERR! To try automated fixes, run `npm doctor`
npm ERR! or report this issue with `npm report`
$ npm report
Gathering information.....
Submitting issue.....
Success! View your submitted issue at https://github.com/npm/support-cli/issues/nnn
$
Then we can decide what text goes into the auto-generated issue, and direct the user to troubleshooting guides or whatever else -- but the main point is, nobody is ever coming and reading the README for this repository. Or rather, they are, but only after they've submitted an issue. Or they're reading it because they want to help with support. (Hey, it could happen...)
My only suggestion is that I prefer to think of npm doctor
as a diagnostic aid, rather than some kind of magical self-service npm fixer. There will be a subset of users who will be able to use it effectively, but by and large, npm report
should dump the results of an npm doctor
run into the issue report, and that should be our go-to method for getting help.
Aside from that, yes, keep the docs here short and sweet, and primarily links to complete docs elsewhere. The actual repository is just a byproduct of needing a place to park our issue tracker that's not npm/npm.
Agree, agree. npm doctor
is diagnostic. npm report
is for asking for help.
Duplicated docs have been removed from the PR, which I will land.
Okay this issue is created in reaction to the comments in #3 and #7. We really need to figure out what the heck we should put in here:
So I'm in favor of keeping this repository as short and sweet as possible. We should only have a small number of files (im thinking 2 or 3).