docs: some initial groundwork #2
1 changed files with 2 additions and 0 deletions
|
@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ The techstack we operate on is
|
|||
- [typst] for documents and concrete proposals
|
||||
- [Rust] for the actual code
|
||||
- [Inkscape], [GIMP] and [Blender] for promotional material like logos and posters
|
||||
- [Penpot] for layouting prototypes and the like
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
So if you want to contribute functionality, take a look at [The Rust Programming Language book]!
|
||||
If you want to contribute thoughts and techincal designs, then consider taking a ride through
|
||||
multisamplednight marked this conversation as resolved
Outdated
schrottkatze
commented
typo:
typo:
```diff
-If you want to contribute thoughts and techincal designs, then consider taking a ride through
+If you want to contribute thoughts and technical designs, then consider taking a ride through
```
|
||||
|
@ -61,6 +62,7 @@ If you want to contribute art or the like, do that in whatever **you** are most
|
|||
[Inkscape]: https://inkscape.org/
|
||||
[GIMP]: https://www.gimp.org/
|
||||
[Blender]: https://www.blender.org/
|
||||
[Penpot]: https://penpot.app/
|
||||
[The Rust Programming Language book]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/
|
||||
[typst's excellent tutorial]: https://typst.app/docs/tutorial
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
Do we really need to list this this way? maybe rather a line that mentions that we use typst for design documentation? the fact that we use rust is quite obvious, and the rest is also just... up to whoever works with the respective things
They are not necessary. In fact, the whole file is not necessary.
However, it serves a different purpose: It tries to lend a helping hand to whatever contributor might come along, regardless of how much they might know to code, design or write yet. And in that case, no, it might not be obvious that we use Rust.
Yes, but someone interested in this tool will know about the open source tools, and if they wanna get involved with whatever, they should ask the respective team beforehand anyway (or until then, we will have dedicated docs for everything)
Personally I believe it's unlikely we'll have any kind of teams, rather just a few maintainers and contributors. In both cases, with or without teams, answering the same questions every single time about the stack we're suggesting to use could become rather tedious. On the other hand: What exactly gets lost by including links to the tools here?
How does knowing about iOwO imply knowledge about other open-source tools? If I were to show this to a photographer or an artist who has never coded before, they could still be interested in contributing, and get a quick overview over the project and approach angles to help with this.
It's simply not relevant to the project yet.
We can take care of documenting the tools we use for branding when we actually have branding...
And with teams I meant more like
If we have 4 contributors and 3 of them work on one thing, a different one and 2 from the other thing work on sth else, then that'd be 2 teams according to the definition I meant. Just like, splitting of responsibilities something something.
I don't really see the harm the list could do, even if parts of it aren't used yet, but sure, whatever. I'll remove the list.
Actually, if it's overkill or "not necessary" for now, then I'll just remove the whole file as well. Guess we can answer the questions manually instead.
Okay. Probably will have to write it again if we publisize the project then some day, but until then we have more then enough time
Exactly. We'd need it to write again later on, and it'll likely contain very similar content. So why not keep the current version, even if it contains content that is not strictly necessary yet? There's no maintenance burden behind it.
I'd just remove the tool-list. Since it's just suggestions anyway. Or at least remove programs like inkscape, of which we won't have in-house custom files in the project. Yes, Ik that inkscape uses svg, but it just isn't necessary since you can always use other editors for those.
I still haven't quite understood how the suggestions are bad.
(and no, I won't accept "just remove them")
Of course it can't.
It sounds like we use exactly these tools and only these tools to me.
In
666b4f9cb6
I re-ordered the wording a bit, in order to make clear that this is only a suggestion. Is that fine?