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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

tools,doc: lint for additional strings in docs #17492

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

tools,doc: lint for additional strings in docs #17492

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ab3535d
doc: use correct and consistent typography for products
Trott Dec 6, 2017
68da4b0
tools: lint for additional strings in docs
Trott Dec 6, 2017
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ change. In the case of pull requests proposed by an existing
Collaborator, an additional Collaborator is required for sign-off.

In some cases, it may be necessary to summon a qualified Collaborator
or a Github team to a pull request for review by @-mention.
or a GitHub team to a pull request for review by @-mention.
[See "Who to CC in issues"](./doc/onboarding-extras.md#who-to-cc-in-issues)

If you are unsure about the modification and are not prepared to take
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ or documentation.
* [`citgm-smoker`](https://ci.nodejs.org/job/citgm-smoker/)
uses [`CitGM`](https://github.com/nodejs/citgm) to allow you to run `npm install && npm test`
on a large selection of common modules. This is useful to check whether a
change will cause breakage in the ecosystem. To test Node.JS ABI changes
change will cause breakage in the ecosystem. To test Node.js ABI changes
you can run [`citgm-abi-smoker`](https://ci.nodejs.org/job/citgm-abi-smoker/).

* [`node-stress-single-test`](https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/)
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -403,7 +403,7 @@ Changes" section of the release notes.

Collaborators may opt to elevate pull requests or issues to the [TSC][] for
discussion by assigning the `tsc-review` label or @-mentioning the
`@nodejs/tsc` Github team. This should be done where a pull request:
`@nodejs/tsc` GitHub team. This should be done where a pull request:

- is labeled `semver-major`, or
- has a significant impact on the codebase, or
Expand Down
6 changes: 4 additions & 2 deletions tools/remark-preset-lint-node/index.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -42,8 +42,10 @@ module.exports.plugins = [
[
require('remark-lint-prohibited-strings'),
[
{ no: 'v8', yes: 'V8' },
{ no: 'Javascript', yes: 'JavaScript' }
{ no: 'Github', yes: 'GitHub' },
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't tools/remark-preset-lint-node/index.js technically provided by watilde/remark-preset-lint-node, and shouldn't be edited downstream? Ref #17441

Copy link
Member Author

@Trott Trott Dec 6, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's a small thing, but I'd prefer that the version downstream get synchronized with this version (after this lands) rather than landing downstream first. If it lands downstream first, there's a race condition where new errors can creep in here before the updated version lands here. Not too big a deal for us as we can fix the problematic text, but potentially irksome for anyone installing the preset locally and suddenly getting errors on the Node.js master branch.

The problem with the approach I suggest above is that some info in the package.json will be wrong for a period of time. We're not running the version specified in the package.json. We're running a modified version and we need to update it again when this gets published upstream.

Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about this and can be persuaded that this should wait for downstream rather than the other way around if people feel strongly about it. Related: We should probably move the repo to the nodejs org and allow a few more folks to publish it, assuming @watilde has no problem with that.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's a small thing, but I'd prefer that the version downstream get synchronized with this version (after this lands) rather than landing downstream first.

Ok, fine by me.

My other point (and why I put a link to my PR) was that this (very small) module should live within the nodejs/node repo, so that we don't have to worry about upstreaming/downstreaming changes and publishing versions to npm.

{ no: 'Javascript', yes: 'JavaScript' },
{ no: 'Node.JS', yes: 'Node.js' },
{ no: 'v8', yes: 'V8' }
]
],
[require('remark-lint-strong-marker'), '*'],
Expand Down