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

tiny npm package #5

Closed
fibo opened this issue Jan 17, 2016 · 5 comments
Closed

tiny npm package #5

fibo opened this issue Jan 17, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

@fibo
Copy link

fibo commented Jan 17, 2016

I wrote an article about this topic, it includes some guidelines to create a README.md: it goes further, since it includes also tools (like standardjs) and conventions to create a minimal but maintainable package.

I would like to adopt a standard for a README, we could discuss here to make converge our ideas.

Tiny npm package.

@zcei
Copy link
Owner

zcei commented Jan 18, 2016

Hej,

I wanted to revive this project for the last couple month, but never got my hands dirty again.
So I'm happy you're jumping on the train!

Still, I wouldn't introduce tools into a standard, that merely describes how a decent readme should look like. (Just because someone is using semicolons in their code, they can still write standard-readme compliant readmes)

What I would like to introduce are more rules for defining your API.
Currently I'm thinking about default sections like Command Line and API, where you have a unified style of describing your package.
For every other section, its layout wouldn't be checked.

Is there anything else you'd like to see baked into standard-readme?

@fibo
Copy link
Author

fibo commented Jan 18, 2016

A License section is missing.
The API section could look like https://github.com/mafintosh/multicast-dns#api
Also a Description section is a good idea.
Some section could be optional, for example: CLI.

@zcei
Copy link
Owner

zcei commented Jan 18, 2016

Please see #4 for the current issues with the License section.
Do agree, that one is needed (currently opting for a small License section linking to a LICENSE file)

@zcei
Copy link
Owner

zcei commented Jan 18, 2016

Some section could be optional, for example: CLI.

Yes, they may be left out - I want to have a linter tool in the end that tells you if you leave out important sections (for example neither Command Line nor API is used, I would at least warn)

Also a Description section is a good idea.

That's what the description part right under the package name is for.
If you do need a more extensive reasoning about your package, one can feel free to use a "optional block" for it.

The API section could look like

It could basically look like anything.. That's why the discussion has an own issue (#3), I'd love to get your input there (at best with arguments, why this style is superior to the other proposed ones)

@zcei zcei mentioned this issue Jan 18, 2016
@fibo
Copy link
Author

fibo commented Jan 18, 2016

Actually I was thinking about this topic, thank you for showing me the issue. I added this comment #3 (comment)

@fibo fibo closed this as completed Nov 14, 2019
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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants