Page MenuHomePhabricator

[Nix Docs] Copy phabricator account creation section
ClosedPublic

Authored by jon on Feb 13 2023, 4:56 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Oct 18, 11:02 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Oct 18, 11:02 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Oct 18, 11:01 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Oct 18, 10:57 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 26 2024, 4:51 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 20 2024, 8:26 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 13 2024, 12:44 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 13 2024, 12:44 AM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

Was able to find the related header for all other sections, only
initial Phabricator account creation was missing.

This is just a straight copy of https://github.com/CommE2E/comm/blob/abe832b337bc320952e6bfd029e623736b6075c9/docs/dev_environment.md#phabricator. Edits to the section will be in the following diff to make review easier.

https://linear.app/comm/issue/ENG-3001

Test Plan

N/A

Diff Detail

Repository
rCOMM Comm
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

varun requested changes to this revision.Feb 13 2023, 6:22 PM

it's unclear to me what we mean by "shared workflows." can we use different terminology?

docs/nix_shared_workflows.md
37 ↗(On Diff #22512)
39 ↗(On Diff #22512)
This revision now requires changes to proceed.Feb 13 2023, 6:22 PM
jon edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)

@ashoat asked me to just initially copy the existing documentation when applicable (this diff), then reword as necessary in another diff ( D6726 in this case).

I don't really understand why we can't just make the copy changes here. Sounds like you and @ashoat discussed this so he should take a look

it's unclear to me what we mean by "shared workflows." can we use different terminology?

Bumping this question

ashoat added a subscriber: varun.

I don't really understand why we can't just make the copy changes here. Sounds like you and @ashoat discussed this so he should take a look

@jon is probably referring to this

I think @varun's inline suggestions are good ones, and we should apply in D6726.

As for "shared workflows"... I agree it might be a little ambiguous, but I'm not sure what a better term would be, and am hoping it won't be so confusing since people will get to it from the mainline nix_dev_env.md, which it's contrasted against "Web workflows" and "Shared workflows".

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Feb 15 2023, 7:21 AM

As for "shared workflows"... I agree it might be a little ambiguous, but I'm not sure what a better term would be, and am hoping it won't be so confusing since people will get to it from the mainline

I change it to "Other workflows", "Useful Workflows", separate the tableplus into a different section altogether and add a "Contributing workflows", or something similar. I don't have a strong preference. I would like to avoid just a single list of everything through.

I think "Shared Workflows" is a better term than either "Other Workflows" or "Useful Workflows". Probably best to leave it as-is unless @varun has a better suggestion

I think "Shared Workflows" is a better term than either "Other Workflows" or "Useful Workflows". Probably best to leave it as-is unless @varun has a better suggestion

shared workflows makes sense when contrasted with web/native workflows. i was just missing that context