Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 04F8E102F9 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:08:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 75869 invoked by uid 500); 24 Feb 2014 20:08:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@cordova.apache.org Received: (qmail 75811 invoked by uid 500); 24 Feb 2014 20:08:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cordova.apache.org Received: (qmail 75803 invoked by uid 99); 24 Feb 2014 20:08:51 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:08:51 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of stevengill97@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.41 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.41] (HELO mail-qa0-f41.google.com) (209.85.216.41) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:08:47 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id w8so6914717qac.28 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:08:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=BFbMy80ZuZv7nIJN8765FB3ek+b8ENr5j69p4MJVIrY=; b=Fh+LIOL7XnS3DBTbgq8FyAF0Pp3TVNrZLjzKGnXvZhOGKgBhDbc6lxRMl08TIUzTFM jY/x/bTnSFo9WSdFPqH3R0O5cVL40Oz2fExAyh99Xd0HdXrhqM7/BBaOLBluQq43iI2l tokmBYWPn914JamyNqL8aK1AEaa3BMCCRrMwXuMDV+ASflNaFourlSana59fNF5O8al6 lJInca30JBQIN9+Gpjsjg/GXiGeSvdEl6VtfmOS105ApWhrbPidETNZ0wiOwaKg2FF0h oEHi0yxOAURjfLHz1FvVJRAx28muimQ6N+sDeEmErZQHG8EIZGvLsd1+zxtin/fgBMNp rTYQ== X-Received: by 10.140.91.12 with SMTP id y12mr30977355qgd.26.1393272507240; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:08:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.88.210 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:08:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <598EA717-5FCD-431E-8BA2-FB37A5ACFB46@gmail.com> From: Steven Gill Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:08:07 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Input request] Rethinking Plugin docs To: "dev@cordova.apache.org" Cc: Lisa Seacat DeLuca , Michael Brooks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113968acde973c04f32c8858 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a113968acde973c04f32c8858 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I personally think we should merge the two into README.md. Our readme files in the plugins are useless right now. Might as well combine some of the info that should be in the readme + index.md so we have all of the important information shown prominently. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Andrew Grieve wrote: > +Michael > > Might be helpful to write out expanded README.md files for our plugins. > Right now, they just contain a title and a link to the docs: > https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-file > > "What it is" is covered by the first paragraph of the docs already I think. > "How to contribute" is pretty obvious for most github-hosted projects, but > I don't think that would hurt as part of the documentation either. > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > > > I think Mike's main consideration is that the README.md is a place for > > general project info (what it is, how to contribute, etc) whereas > > documentation, inc translations, should be in a dedicated space as > standard > > convention so we can tool it. (Something like this: `doc/[lang]/index.md > > `.) > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Andrew Grieve > > wrote: > > > > > That was basically the question in my head as I was typing... I'd be > > happy > > > with having just a README.md, and allowing it to link to relative .md > > paths > > > if it wanted to. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Lisa Seacat DeLuca < > ldeluca@us.ibm.com > > >wrote: > > > > > >> If README.md is the standard why not just call all of them README and > > not > > >> have an index.md file at all for the plugins. What is the advantage > of > > >> having both? Seems more confusing than anything. > > >> > > >> Lisa Seacat DeLuca > > >> Mobile Engineer | t: +415.787.4589 | *ldeluca@apache.org*< > > ldeluca@apache.org>| | > > >> *ldeluca@us.ibm.com* | *lisaseacat.com*< > > http://www.lisaseacat.com/>| [image: > > >> follow @LisaSeacat on twitter] | > > [image: > > >> follow Lisa Seacat DeLuca on linkedin]< > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/lisaseacat> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> From: Andrew Grieve > > >> To: dev > > >> Date: 02/24/2014 01:41 PM > > >> Subject: Re: [Input request] Rethinking Plugin docs > > >> Sent by: agrieve@google.com > > >> ------------------------------ > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Marcel Kinard > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > On Feb 24, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Andrew Grieve > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > - We may also want to include README.md files in the translations. > > >> > > doc/fr/index.md > > >> > > doc/fr/README.md > > >> > > > >> > What content do you forsee being in README.md other than a > > >> > table-of-contents to the languages? Or in other words, would it be > > >> > public-facing content that could be collapsed in to the rest of the > > >> plugin > > >> > docs? > > >> > > > >> > > >> On npmjs.org and on github, README.md's are the files that are shown > > most > > >> prominently. So, I speculate that many plugins will not provide a doc/ > > >> index.md, and instead provide only a README.md. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > - We don't need the version in the directory since we can use git > > >> tags to > > >> > > find old versions > > >> > > > >> > That makes sense. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > --001a113968acde973c04f32c8858--