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

Cleanup README #1672

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Cleanup README #1672

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

joshka
Copy link
Contributor

@joshka joshka commented Mar 5, 2024

Use consistent em-dashes, and spacing

Use consistent em-dashes, and spacing
@palfrey
Copy link
Collaborator

palfrey commented Mar 15, 2024

In lots of ways, I like this. I like improvements to the consistency of the list, especially ones that basically take stuff that was being kinda done and move it to "and now it all does it".

My concern however is that maintenance on this will be a pain in the proverbial. Pretty much everything else that's being maintained quality wise right now on the repo is automated. This is very deliberate as it means I have a hope in heck of keeping up, just by being able to go "if the CI is happy, merging won't be that bad". This PR if merged would make a bunch of improvements, and then probably the improvements would go away over time and I just wouldn't notice.

If you can figure out a way to automate this (ideally by improvements to the existing Rust tool, but I'll take whatever), I'd be interested in merging this.

@joshka
Copy link
Contributor Author

joshka commented Mar 16, 2024

Once the consistency is there automating the lint will be fairly simple (each line matches a regex).

The rationale behind this change was that there is a tool that uses this data for visualization and a bunch of lines don't match the regex in the tool.

@palfrey
Copy link
Collaborator

palfrey commented Apr 5, 2024

Once the consistency is there automating the lint will be fairly simple (each line matches a regex).

I was a bit unclear before: I won't merge this without the lint being added into the CI. This repo chews up a fair amount of time even with the mostly automated reviews, and things that add to the ongoing manual overhead i.e. checking for this sort of thing in new PRs (even if it's not obligatory, merging this would make me wonder about it) are therefore bad.

If however, a lint gets added, that's excellent, as then it's just "read the build logs, see the obvious message, at most point that out to people adding things", which is very much inline with how all the other automation works right now.

@joshka
Copy link
Contributor Author

joshka commented Apr 9, 2024

Got it - I'll add this at some point soon

@palfrey
Copy link
Collaborator

palfrey commented May 6, 2024

Got it - I'll add this at some point soon

How's this going?

joshka added 3 commits May 9, 2024 19:19
- Add descriptions for all missing items
- add tldr section to contributing doc to make it easy to link to in linter
@joshka
Copy link
Contributor Author

joshka commented May 10, 2024

How's this going?

Done - I think
I used the linter to find all the places in the readme that didn't have descriptions, and added them (mostly copied from the GitHub description / crate description verbatim, but some copied from a readme or similar)

Merged from the main branch into this branch - I'd probably suggest squash merging this rather than hitting the merge button for a neater history.

@@ -578,6 +580,9 @@ async fn main() -> Result<(), Error> {
warn!("No valid crates link");
}
return Err(format_err!("Not high enough metrics ({:?} stars < {}, and {:?} cargo downloads < {}): {}", github_stars, required_stars, cargo_downloads, MINIMUM_CARGO_DOWNLOADS, list_item));
if !ITEM_REGEX.is_match(&list_item) {
return Err(format_err!("Item does not match the template: {}. See https://github.com/rust-unofficial/awesome-rust/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#tldr", list_item));
}
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is code after a return which the compiler is flagging as "unreachable expression"

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Indeed it is. My apologies. I was testing this with some of the code commented out so as not to trigger the throttling issues, and uncommented things wrong at the last minute before pushing. Will fix and retest.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants