Skip to content

doc: make node(1) more consistent with tradition #8902

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
strugee wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

doc: make node(1) more consistent with tradition #8902

strugee wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@strugee
Copy link
Contributor

@strugee strugee commented Oct 3, 2016

Checklist
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

doc

Description of change
  • Removed loads of whitespace
  • Added traditional BUGS and AUTHORS sections
  • Renamed ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES to ENVIRONMENT, as is traditional

In particular I'm not sure if everyone will be cool with the BUGS text - I personally think it's good but if anyone disagrees I'm not super attached to it. Also, I put .\"s instead of outright removing the newlines because I think it's (slightly) more readable, but I can also get rid of those.

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. label Oct 3, 2016
@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

bnoordhuis commented Oct 3, 2016

The "has many bugs" in the BUGS section is too nondescript to be useful, I'd change it to a REPORTING BUGS section with a link to the bug tracker.

I personally don't care for an AUTHORS section; it's not very relevant to readers and in our case it's misleading because Ryan hasn't worked on node for something like four years now.

Suggestion: a LICENSE section might be a good addition.

addaleax
addaleax reviewed Oct 3, 2016
View reviewed changes
doc/node.1 Outdated
Copy link
Member

@addaleax addaleax Oct 3, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be “blob”?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@strugee strugee Oct 3, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice catch! Fixed.

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor

Fishrock123 commented Oct 3, 2016

I don't agree with the ./" -- imo this will only make it harder for people less familiar to contribute to this. I suggest removing those.

Fishrock123
Fishrock123 suggested changes Oct 3, 2016
View reviewed changes
doc/node.1 Outdated
Copy link
Contributor

@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 Oct 3, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Effectively written by many others too. I would just link to the AUTHORS.

doc/node.1 Outdated
Copy link
Contributor

@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 Oct 3, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

same, maybe just link the issue tracker? it's also linked below though....

imo, just remove

@strugee
Copy link
Contributor Author

strugee commented Oct 3, 2016

@bnoordhuis @Fishrock123 changed the wording of the BUGS section to be more concise. If people still disagree with this I can just remove it entirely

I also changed AUTHORS to not mention Ryan, got rid of the .\"s and added a COPYRIGHT section

Fishrock123
Fishrock123 suggested changes Oct 4, 2016
View reviewed changes
doc/node.1 Outdated
Copy link
Contributor

@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 Oct 4, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, I meant not to touch these at all.

I know it's not "perfectly syntactically correct" but it is far more readable.

In my experience the problems with rendering are negligible if any for the potential cost of people having a hard time contributing.

doc/node.1 Outdated
Copy link
Contributor

@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 Oct 4, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Add spaces between please (see above note)

doc/node.1 Outdated
Copy link
Contributor

@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 Oct 4, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this correct -- all rights are not reserved, it is licensed under MIT.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@strugee strugee Oct 4, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Honestly, I thought so too. But that's what LICENSE says. Does that need to be changed too?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@strugee strugee Oct 4, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Fishrock123 changed this despite the inconsistency with LICENSE.

doc/node.1 Outdated
Copy link
Contributor

@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 Oct 4, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the previous wording is more obvious.

@strugee
Copy link
Contributor Author

strugee commented Oct 4, 2016

All issues fixed, including the "All rights reserved" section (even though it's inconsistent with LICENSE).

jasnell
jasnell approved these changes Oct 6, 2016
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@jasnell jasnell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Couple of nits I'd like to see fixed up but otherwise LGTM

doc/node.1 Outdated
Copy link
Member

@jasnell jasnell Oct 6, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/Node/Node.js

doc/node.1 Outdated
Copy link
Member

@jasnell jasnell Oct 6, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: Given that #node.js is not yet considered an official resource managed by the project, a note indicating it's unofficial status might be worthwhile.

Fishrock123
Fishrock123 reviewed Oct 6, 2016
View reviewed changes
doc/node.1 Outdated
Copy link
Contributor

@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 Oct 6, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

could please add spaces here? looks good other than that

@strugee
Copy link
Contributor Author

strugee commented Oct 6, 2016

👍 all issues fixed; this is ready to merge

jasnell
jasnell reviewed Oct 7, 2016
View reviewed changes
doc/node.1 Outdated
Copy link
Member

@jasnell jasnell Oct 7, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: long line here. could be fixed when landing.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@strugee strugee Oct 8, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed

@strugee
doc: make node(1) more consistent with tradition
9d477f5 
* Added traditional BUGS, AUTHORS and COPYRIGHT sections
* Fixed some minor issues with the IRC links
jasnell pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 8, 2016
@strugee @jasnell
doc: make node(1) more consistent with tradition
90cd39f 
* Added traditional BUGS, AUTHORS and COPYRIGHT sections
* Fixed some minor issues with the IRC links

PR-URL: #8902
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Oct 8, 2016

Landed in 90cd39f. Thank you!

@jasnell jasnell closed this Oct 8, 2016
@strugee
Copy link
Contributor Author

strugee commented Oct 8, 2016

Thanks very much! 👍

jasnell pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2016
@strugee @jasnell
doc: make node(1) more consistent with tradition
77f8bdd 
* Added traditional BUGS, AUTHORS and COPYRIGHT sections
* Fixed some minor issues with the IRC links

PR-URL: #8902
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Fishrock123 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2016
@strugee @Fishrock123
doc: make node(1) more consistent with tradition
72ed6aa 
* Added traditional BUGS, AUTHORS and COPYRIGHT sections
* Fixed some minor issues with the IRC links

PR-URL: #8902
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2016
@strugee
doc: make node(1) more consistent with tradition
fc77cbb 
* Added traditional BUGS, AUTHORS and COPYRIGHT sections
* Fixed some minor issues with the IRC links

PR-URL: #8902
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Nov 22, 2016
Merged
@strugee strugee deleted the better-manpage branch August 26, 2017 22:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jasnell jasnell jasnell approved these changes

@addaleax addaleax addaleax left review comments

+1 more reviewer

@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 Fishrock123 approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants

@strugee @bnoordhuis @Fishrock123 @jasnell @addaleax @MylesBorins @nodejs-github-bot