Skip to content
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.

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

WIP: automagically format the docs #39700

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

grahamc
Copy link
Member

@grahamc grahamc commented Apr 30, 2018

don't merge me, but here is what the docs look like auto-formatted.

Prior to merging, I would of course have to document the tool, config, and methods of how I did it.

Any opinions?

NOTE: Please say on this PR if you like it! Otherwise I may not merge it, since it is so big.

@grahamc grahamc requested a review from nbp as a code owner April 30, 2018 02:32
@grahamc
Copy link
Member Author

grahamc commented Apr 30, 2018

cc #39649 and @jcrben

@grahamc
Copy link
Member Author

grahamc commented Apr 30, 2018

Copy link
Member

@Mic92 Mic92 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Open manual pull requests should be merge ahead of this (I don't expect to many open ones though).
Some test would be nice to check if the formatting was applied in pull requests.

@edolstra
Copy link
Member

Well, not indenting top-level paragraphs was intentional in order not to introduce a lot of superfluous indentation.

@grahamc
Copy link
Member Author

grahamc commented Apr 30, 2018

I've only seen positive-or-neutral (after clarifying with Eelco on IRC) feedback on this, so I think this is a go. I'll document how I did this and send that as a separate PR.

Beyond the top ... few ... here I'm not sure I should go back and ensure they can merge first: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%228.has%3A+documentation%22

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented May 1, 2018

Definitely looks an improvement, at least at a superficial look. I'm mainly concerned about conflicts with open PRs and conflicts in future cherry-picks to 18.03.

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented May 1, 2018

As for open PRs, they should be solvable after this reformat as well – they can run the formatting tool on the old state and just verify the diff against the newly formatted master.

I suppose 18.03 cherry-picks of docs will also find some way, and I don't expect many of them. In the "worst" case we can just run the reformating on all docs in 18.03 as well, as that doesn't seem as such a breaking change :-)

@grahamc
Copy link
Member Author

grahamc commented May 1, 2018

In the "worst" case we can just run the reformating on all docs in 18.03 as well

I was thinking I would just go ahead and do that :)

I've been making a bit of an effort to backport 18.03-relevant doc improvements, too.

@grahamc
Copy link
Member Author

grahamc commented May 2, 2018

on master, nixpkgs: 77161de
on master, nixos: eca5c99
on release-18.03, nixpkgs: 5eae581
on release-18.03, nixos: d3644fc

@grahamc grahamc closed this May 2, 2018
@grahamc grahamc deleted the doc-formatting branch May 2, 2018 00:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants