Improve docs portability

alecandido commented 3 years ago

Many tasks in docs assume particular conditions on the system and the installation, that are not strictly required.

e.g.:

the availability of open command for displaying html docs -> there is webbrowser in stdlib
the availability of tree command for displaying the structure -> use os.walk and render with python libraries (e.g. rich)

I'm sure that other occurrences of this kind of issue are present in other invocations as well, but I was using docs in the first placed and I started fixing that one, if ever I'll try to improve also the others.

P.S.: for my personal convenience I'm also replacing the small .gitignore present with the standard Python.gitignore maintained by GitHub

alecandido commented 3 years ago

Okay, I see pathlib it's breaking compatibility with python2. Of course I don't need it, but it's much more natural than os.path...

Is it really an issue in late 2020?

alecandido commented 3 years ago

An answer to the former question or just a request on what to improve would be appreciated :)

The main content of the PR was replacing open shell command (which it's not generally available) with standard library webbrowser module, why is this not liked?

revolter commented 3 years ago

He closed all of the PRs because he renamed the master branch to main, but I can't understand why doesn't he reopen them so we can simply change the target branch...

alecandido commented 3 years ago

Looks like not being a contributor I can't change the target branch, but just open a new one, I allowed "edits by maintainers", just hope that someone will move it.

Thank you @revolter for your answer anyway :)

pyinvoke / invocations

Improve docs portability #22