Open yegor256 opened 3 months ago
I assume your comment is about our site (link).
I believe, it would be more convenient for users, if you generate the entire documentation as a single long Markdown document
GH Markdown makes section names at certain level so small that they're almost indistinguishable from bold text. The site does have pages with nested sections. Hence, the text structure in a single Markdown file may be non-obvious. Example:
Section body
Additionally, the site contains sections that are of no interest for a user, e.g., Contributing
. I don't think users would like to scroll through them in the README.
We do this, for example, in this repo: https://github.com/yegor256/micromap/blob/master/.github/workflows/benchmark.yml
Do you suggest that we make pipeline results more prominent?
We currently have a link to the report (link) in the Introduction section on our site (link).
I can agree that this link is not very discoverable. To fix this, I can additionally put it into the README.
However, I can't agree that we should include the whole report into the README.
I believe, it would be more convenient for users
Why do you believe so?
The navigation will be easier
What is not easy about the current navigation?
@deemp I can't prove it: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/78519596/what-is-better-a-single-long-readme-file-or-a-set-of-smaller-cross-linked-pages but it seems that one long README is a good practice now
We do have TOC.
@maxonfjvipon @volodya-lombrozo what do you think?
@yegor256 @deemp If it's possible to have both - long readme and website - let's have both. If there's only one option - I vote for a readme because project is not that big and there are not so many sections and subsections.
@deemp currently, there is nothing in README. If you move "the information necessary for developer to get started and contributing" -- 50% of your documentation site will end up being in the README. Then, the question is: why not 100%? Where is the line?
I believe that the links above are mostly about Javadoc (or similar) documentation generators, which indeed are very verbose and should not be placed in README. If this project is planning to have such an API doc -- definitely let's keep it in a separate site. However, currently, your documentation site contains what usually people keep in the README.
@yegor256
the information necessary for developer to get started and contributing
I assume something like this. Any downsides?
@deemp yes, this is what looks wrong, if you ask me. And the authors of the links you quoted above would agree with you :)
However, currently, your documentation site contains what usually people keep in the README.
@yegor256, I'm not convinced. I think I can agree or accept your suggestion in two cases.
objectionary
organization what should go into a README
@deemp how about we just stick to the formula suggested above by yourself: "README should be a short overview and quick start" (it seems that most people agree, in the poll). Once it's done, you will see how much is left for the auto-generated static site.
@yegor256, I don't mind to try, so I created https://github.com/objectionary/normalizer/issues/368.
I believe, it would be more convenient for users, if you generate the entire documentation as a single long Markdown document and then inject it into the
README.md
on everypush
, making a pull request with the changes. Then, you will merge the pull request and the project face will be updated. We do this, for example, in this repo: https://github.com/yegor256/micromap/blob/master/.github/workflows/benchmark.ymlMotivation: