-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.7k
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
update readme, add Discord to site, other improvements/changes #1224
Conversation
This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more). 🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/docsify-core/docsify-preview/i0tszvr6w |
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox. To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA. Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit a714dae:
|
Agreed. I guess we can move the contributing section to a
I dont think we should remove it . Lets keep those. Remove the similar project table. and move the sponsor's thing to top. like they did
yeah, move the sponsor's list to top
the opencollective is docsify 's own account. We need to keep that. Also contributor's list is being auto-generated by the opencollective's link as well. SO we can keep those like a current.
lets keep this. He has set up a GitHub repo for that. I guess we can add open collective badge as well. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Will do this after I figure out the lighthouse issue |
Based on the chat on Discord #maintainers, I think we can remove it until when/if we add new links to funding that current maintainers can manage. (cc @jhildenbiddle) |
I think we should have brief information about the project at the top, linking to the website for more info, then sponsors after right below it, and nothing more to keep it simple.
Does that include code contributors? Or only OpenCollective contributors? |
lets have some thoughts in discord. I messaged already |
both |
I'm new to opencollective. So yeah, if it generates the contributor list
based on the commits from the GitHub repo, then that's great.
#!/JoePea
…On Fri, Jul 3, 2020, 12:33 AM Anix ***@***.***> wrote:
Does that include code contributors? Or only OpenCollective contributors?
both
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1224 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACIVTR6ZCBRQK77OP4QRGDRZWCURANCNFSM4N7GGH3Q>
.
|
Made a PR for this at #1274 In regards to the link on the donating, does the link redirects to the old maintainer? |
Any update here ? |
@anikethsaha @sy-records @Koooooo-7 This PR is woefully outdated, contains relatively minor changes (shuffling icons on My suggestion is to close this PR as well as #1274, then create new PRs for the following:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I updated some docs, will u wanna continue finish this 😃.
Summary
Preview here: https://github.com/docsifyjs/docsify/tree/update-readme
TODO:
inspiration
As a source of inspiration, I'm looking at AssemblyScript's README (and others):
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (check at least one)
Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (check one)
If yes, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications:
The PR fulfills these requirements:
fix #xxx[,#xxx]
, where "xxx" is the issue number)You have tested in the following browsers: (Providing a detailed version will be better.)
If adding a new feature, the PR's description includes: