Move the API specs into the Specs repo

[daviddias]

I'm wondering if there is any particular reason why this specs aren't on the Specs repo

[jbenet]

@diasdavid hmm good point. not sure, maybe because we made this repo with the intent to have the api live here? we can probably move stuff over to specs if you think it wold help to keep it all there

[jbenet]

yeah probably makes sense

[dignifiedquire]

I suggest moving the apiary spec from https://github.com/dignifiedquire/ipfs-http-api to here, and the spec documents into the specs repo

[jbenet]

Sgtm
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:18 Friedel Ziegelmayer notifications@github.com
wrote:

I suggest moving the apiary spec from
https://github.com/dignifiedquire/ipfs-http-api to here, and the spec
documents into the specs repo

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11 (comment).

[RichardLitt]

Sounds good to me, too. 👍 Happy to do this later today.

[daviddias]

Thank you :) Having specs on the specs repo helps for coordination (tagging PR and issues with its respective part of the system, so that others can tag along)

[dignifiedquire]

@RichardLitt I changed the apiary settings to pull from this repo

[daviddias]

@dignifiedquire would it be possible for it to pull from ipfs/specs so that we have all the specs there?

[dignifiedquire]

@diasdavid it would but that would mean the file has to be in the top level and you can't nest it.

[daviddias]

@dignifiedquire just one file right? I would be comfortable with that. Maybe we can contact support from Apiary to see if they would be open to add nesting as a feature

[RichardLitt]

Well, it may be smart to have both; the spec API, also listed in .apib, and then the actual API, which could be listed here as functions that we know are currently available. This would solve some issues, like #14. This would allow us to look at specs when we want to know how the API should look, and to compare the two. The only real issue I can foresee with this is when we want to change both specs and the api here, but I don't think that's something that can be avoided.

What do you think? I'll contact Apiary about nesting as a feature, if this sounds good.

[daviddias]

Having both sounds good :) Let's move it to the specs repo :D

@dborzov found that you had invested some energy on documenting the CLI API as well (ipfs/kubo#785), wanna help us finish this endeavour, having the API spec'ed out will be incredibly helpful for everyone consuming IPFS with clients or simply building the client libraries (like js-ipfs-api)

[daviddias]

Apparently was done on:

0988505

Thank you @RichardLitt

[RichardLitt]

Yep. Thanks.