Move top-level VCS fields reference page content back to description pages #10543
Conversation
|
I am not sure I agree with removing the VCS fields section entirely, but I do agree it is a poor fit. This may mean we want to split the user manual from a technical reference, with links thereto as needed. |
malteneuss
force-pushed
the
remove-version-control-fields-page
branch
from
d7e3854
to
73589bf
Compare
|
The content of that section isn't gone. It just now lives in the two reference pages with a bit of duplication, which i think is fine, because the use cases are quite separate. A nice guide how to fill those attribute is also still present. |
|
Would it be possible to avoid the duplication and remove the One way to do this would be: $ git diff
diff --git a/doc/index.rst b/doc/index.rst
index 0b5407e85..0791253d8 100644
--- a/doc/index.rst
+++ b/doc/index.rst
@@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ Welcome to the Cabal User Guide
cabal-package-description-file
cabal-project-description-file
- version-control-fields
cabal-config-and-commands
external-commands
setup-commands
diff --git a/doc/version-control-fields.rst b/doc/version-control-fields.rst
index 739905d4b..33ba9046f 100644
--- a/doc/version-control-fields.rst
+++ b/doc/version-control-fields.rst
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+:orphan:
+
Version Control System Fields
============================= |
|
I would like to avoid having a page that is basically only reachable via a an anchor link deep in the reference pages, and which creates a layer of indirection to read the full reference content. This small amount of duplication in the field descriptions shouldn't be a problem as it's quite stable; before your improvements those sections only ever where touched 2x for tiny changes in 4 years. |
What about using other means to avoid duplication such as the include directive? |
|
Thanks for the contribution! I definitely feel that it's the right direction. I only will be able to properly review this in the matter of days (due to the ongoing release procedures and last minute issues related to this like #10548). |
| **source code repository**. | ||
| A metadata marker that helps users of your package find its source code. | ||
| This marker points to a *source code* snapshot within a | ||
| version control systems (VCS) **repository** like Git. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| version control systems (VCS) **repository** like Git. | |
| version control systems (VCS) repository like Git. |
I really don't see a need for bold here. But that's subjective.
|
|
||
| There are two kinds. You can specify one or the other or both at once: | ||
| Here are some examples that point to snapshots of the Cabal library in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think moving the examples before the definition of the kinds (this vs head) is a bad idea: without knowing about this and head examples make little sense.
|
|
||
| .. pkg-field:: type: VCS kind | ||
| .. pkg-field:: type: VCS tool |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think tool is a good word here. Kind is better but it's overloaded in this section referring to this or head. I'd use "type" for one of the cases and "kind" for another.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about "The VCS hosting the repository"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like it has to be one word. I also don't think "hosting" is a good match: I'm used to think of hosting in the context of VCS as the github hosting, gitlab hosting and others. So, to me using the word hosting here would be confusing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A version control system is a software tool that automates version control.
wikipedia/version_control
Should we shorten all of the VCS references to VC? If so then this change would be (otherwise it's VCS system):
- .. pkg-field:: type: VCS kind
+ .. pkg-field:: type: VC systemThe other thing we could do is drop the widespread use of VCS as an acronym. "Version Control" is not too long.
| @@ -53,8 +53,9 @@ for a package, both for :ref:`package authors<pkg-authors>` and maintainers and | |||
| for :ref:`package consumers<pkg-consumers>`. | |||
|
|
|||
| A relatively structured set of version control system (VCS) fields, that vary | |||
| depending on the :ref:`VCS kind<vcs-kind>`, enables Cabal commands and other | |||
| tools to interpret and make effective use of this information. | |||
| depending on the :ref:`VCS tool<source-repository-package-type>`, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
here the link says "type", which makes much more sense than "tool"
|
I was initially hesitant to use |
Done (see the initial comment, it's quite simple). |
|
|
||
| .. cfg-field:: tag: VCS tag | ||
|
|
||
| This field is optional. | ||
| This field is optional but, if given, specifies a single subdirectory. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this a copy and paste typo? Looks like subdir content within the tag field section.
|
|
||
| .. pkg-field:: type: VCS kind | ||
| .. pkg-field:: type: VCS tool |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A version control system is a software tool that automates version control.
wikipedia/version_control
Should we shorten all of the VCS references to VC? If so then this change would be (otherwise it's VCS system):
- .. pkg-field:: type: VCS kind
+ .. pkg-field:: type: VC systemThe other thing we could do is drop the widespread use of VCS as an acronym. "Version Control" is not too long.
|
|
||
| This field is required. | ||
| - ``git`` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about just git with a redirection to other much less popular ones on a dedicated VCS page? 😈
All of the examples for package and project VCS use are for Git. It is the dominant VCS so that is fine.
|
|
||
| .. _source-repository-package-type: | ||
|
|
||
| .. cfg-field:: type: VCS tool |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we change this to vcs-field? As can be seen in the diff in #10553 (comment), we're using pkg-field and cfg-field to mean the same thing.
-.. pkg-field:: location: VCS location
+.. cfg-field:: location: VCS location| @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ Welcome to the Cabal User Guide | |||
|
|
|||
| cabal-package-description-file | |||
| cabal-project-description-file | |||
| version-control-fields | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Of all the cabal-related things I do, adding a source-repository-package to a cabal.project is the most frequent when maintaining a project. To be able to look up these fields with one click is a convenience I'd not like to loose.
| .. list-table:: | ||
| :header-rows: 1 | ||
| :widths: 30 30 40 | ||
|
|
||
| * - Field Name | ||
| - source-repository (head|this) | ||
| - source-repository-package | ||
| * - type | ||
| - [x] | ||
| - [x] | ||
| * - location | ||
| - [x] | ||
| - [x] | ||
| * - branch | ||
| - [x] | ||
| - [x] | ||
| * - tag | ||
| - [x] | ||
| - [x] | ||
| * - subdir | ||
| - [x] (0 or 1) | ||
| - [x] (0 or 1 for each dependency) | ||
| * - module (CVS only) | ||
| - [x] | ||
| - [_] | ||
| * - post-checkout-command | ||
| - [_] | ||
| - [x] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be a shame to loose this table, 4 of the fields are the same but 3 are not. It is good to be able to see that.
|
@malteneuss, I see #10553 has merged. |
A small improvement of a step of the user guide improvement initiative #9214:
I removed the top-level VCS fields reference page and moved its content into the
.cabalandcabal.projectreference pages with a bit of duplication. With more content coming to the Cabal documentation, the top-level space is precious and a short description of a technical detail doesn't feel to pull its weight.