forgejo/docs
31
58
Fork
You've already forked docs
249

docs repo structure #1

Closed
opened 2023年08月14日 00:35:28 +02:00 by caesar · 3 comments
Member
Copy link

The content of this docs repo is taken from the docs content of the website repo and is up to date as of forgejo/website@ffa9478411.

I have rewritten the history of the repo so that:

  • Each version of the docs branches off the next branch instead of duplicating files.
    This gives us a much better history for each file and better blame output.
  • Merge commits are greatly reduced.

At present the docs files live in the root of the repo, with images in the _images subdirectory. This was easiest for pulling the content in as submodules on the website repo.

However, I might change this to put the content in a docs subdirectory, so that we can put a readme, contributing guide, etc in the root without them becoming part of the website.

The intended strategy for contributions to the docs is as follows:

  • PRs should be sent against either the next branch or a version branch as appropriate
  • When merging PRs, merge commits should be avoided where possible, by fast-forwarding and squashing where appropriate. Single commits should always be fast-forwarded.
  • Changes can be back- or front-ported by cherry-picking.

For larger sets of changes, feature branches can be created and can then be merged into multiple docs branches. However this will require the feature branches to be branched from the common ancestor of all the branches into which it is to be merged, which may sometimes result in many conflicts.

I would appreciate any feedback on all of the above.

The content of this docs repo is taken from the [docs content of the website repo](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/src/branch/main/src/content/docs) and is up to date as of https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/commit/ffa9478411ac0a8348062c4b1ea93bc8e273ddb4. I have rewritten the history of the repo so that: - Each version of the docs branches off the `next` branch instead of duplicating files. This gives us a much better history for each file and better `blame` output. - Merge commits are greatly reduced. At present the docs files live in the root of the repo, with images in the `_images` subdirectory. This was easiest for pulling the content in as submodules on the website repo. However, I might change this to put the content in a `docs` subdirectory, so that we can put a readme, contributing guide, etc in the root without them becoming part of the website. The intended strategy for contributions to the docs is as follows: - PRs should be sent against either the `next` branch or a version branch as appropriate - When merging PRs, merge commits should be avoided where possible, by fast-forwarding and squashing where appropriate. Single commits should always be fast-forwarded. - Changes can be back- or front-ported by cherry-picking. For larger sets of changes, feature branches can be created and can then be merged into multiple docs branches. However this will require the feature branches to be branched from the common ancestor of all the branches into which it is to be merged, which may sometimes result in many conflicts. I would appreciate any feedback on all of the above.

However, I might change this to put the content in a docs subdirectory, so that we can put a readme, contributing guide, etc in the root without them becoming part of the website.

That's a good idea. Would this be done now or at a later time?

The intended strategy for contributions to the docs is as follows:

I'm good with that.

Really happy to see that happening.

> However, I might change this to put the content in a docs subdirectory, so that we can put a readme, contributing guide, etc in the root without them becoming part of the website. That's a good idea. Would this be done now or at a later time? > The intended strategy for contributions to the docs is as follows: I'm good with that. Really happy to see that happening.
Author
Member
Copy link

Would this be done now or at a later time?

I've already changed it. I still need to make a few more changes to forgejo/website#331 though as it broke one or two things there.

> Would this be done now or at a later time? I've already changed it. I still need to make a few more changes to https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/pulls/331 though as it broke one or two things there.
Author
Member
Copy link

Closing as this seems settled for now, but anyone who has suggestions is still welcome to comment or to re-open this issue.

Closing as this seems settled for now, but anyone who has suggestions is still welcome to comment or to re-open this issue.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag specified
next
v16.0
v15.0
v11.0
bp-v15.0-c7697f2
actions-remove-non-existing-strategy-options
v14.0
v13.0
v12.0
v7.0
v10.0
v9.0
v8.0
v1.21
v1.20
v1.19
v13.0.0-dev
Labels
Clear labels
404
Broken links or missing content
backport/v1.19
Changes which should be backported to the v1.19 docs

Archived

backport/v1.20
Changes which should be backported to the v1.20 docs

Archived

backport/v1.21
Changes which should be backported to the v1.21 docs

Archived

backport/v10.0
Automated backport to v10.0

Archived

backport/v11.0
Automated backport to v11.0
backport/v12.0
Automated backport to v12.0

Archived

backport/v13.0
Automated backport to v13.0

Archived

backport/v14.0
Automated backport to v14.0

Archived

backport/v15.0
Automated backport to v15.0
backport/v16.0
Automated backport to v16.0
backport/v7.0
Automated backport to the v7.0 docs

Archived

backport/v8.0
Automated backport to the v8.0 docs

Archived

backport/v9.0
Automated backport to the v9.0 docs

Archived

good first issue
This issue is suitable for "drive-by contributors" wanting to contribute for the first time, and fixing it should be straightforward.
meta
Tooling and processes for maintaining the docs
new docs
Content to be added to the documentation

Archived

User research - Accessibility
Requires input about accessibility features, likely involves user testing.
User research - Blocked
Do not pick as-is! We are happy if you can help, but please coordinate with ongoing redesign in this area.
User research - Community
Community features, such as discovering other people's work or otherwise feeling welcome on a Forgejo instance.
User research - Config (instance)
Instance-wide configuration, authentication and other admin-only needs.
User research - Errors
How to deal with errors in the application and write helpful error messages.
User research - Filters
How filter and search is being worked with.
User research - Future backlog
The issue might be inspiring for future design work.
User research - Git workflow
AGit, fork-based and new Git workflow, PR creation etc
User research - Labels
Active research about Labels
User research - Moderation
Moderation Featuers for Admins are undergoing active User Research
User research - Needs input
Use this label to let the User Research team know their input is requested.
User research - Notifications/Dashboard
Research on how users should know what to do next.
User research - Rendering
Text rendering, markup languages etc
User research - Repo creation
Active research about the New Repo dialog.
User research - Repo units
The repo sections, disabling them and the "Add more" button.
User research - Security
User research - Settings (in-app)
How to structure in-app settings in the future?
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
forgejo/docs#1
Reference in a new issue
forgejo/docs
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?