Fork me on GitHub
#cljdoc
<
2021-09-28
>
lread16:09:42

@deleted-user I’m not sure what makes for the best workflow, but I tend to work from a fork for cljdoc. It seemed to me that is the workflow that GitHub kind of expects, but not sure. I have, for very minor things that I am super confident don’t merit a review (maybe a typo in docs) pushed to the main branch, but maybe that’s never a great idea. If we come up with workflows/guidance we should probably add them to our developer docs. There’s also perhaps guidance of when to merge your own PR to main. Whether or not to ask for a review, etc.

deleted16:09:30

right, that last bit is definitely something I just did, merged my own PR. granted it was just style changes but still

lread16:09:50

Ya, seems good to me, you felt confident, didn’t feel a need to bounce the change off the team for feedback, so merged.

lread16:09:06

Yeah, makes total sense to me.

lread16:09:39

Yeah, I think the guideline might be if you feel confident, then merge away. I think that trusting devs to be sensible has worked out for cljdoc quite well.

lread16:09:11

But maybe adding a few words in our docs on that strategy could be helpful to newcomers.

1
martinklepsch18:09:21

wow Cora, you’re a god-send 💜

💜 1
martinklepsch18:09:56

I feel you on the kicking back thing, my strategy has been to intentionally try a bit more loose, optimize for fun in the process rather than engineering perfection

martinklepsch18:09:05

I see that as referring to input state and stuff like that but I could see us going either way on this

martinklepsch18:09:35

especially with the icon the new tab thing seems like what people might expect but who knows

martinklepsch18:09:14

I think there’s value in visually discerning between links that lead to external sites

lread18:09:55

Some things I try to keep in mind when reviewing: • how much of a maintenance burden is this change introducing to the team? • is this a “yes, is forever” thing? Like the addition of the :url to cljdoc.edn is something we’ve now committed to supporting forever. Which is just fine in this case, but I like to keep this in mind.

lread18:09:24

Oh, oops, maybe wrong thread! simple_smile But related to larger discussion.

lread19:09:49

I think @U050TNB9F had the valid “yes, is forever” concern with me wanting to support more formatting of various different AsciiDoc elements.

martinklepsch18:09:14

I hadn’t considered that but makes sense!