tildeverse
/
rfcs
4
6
Fork 6
Code Issues 5 Pull Requests 1 Releases Wiki Activity

WIP: rfc.tildeverse.org is a static website powered by Zola! #9

Draft
southerntofu wants to merge 2 commits from southerntofu/rfcs:master into master
pull from: southerntofu/rfcs:master
merge into: tildeverse:master
Conversation 5 Commits 2 Files Changed 30 +5471 -504
southerntofu commented 2019-08-02 14:56:16 +00:00
First-time contributor
Copy Link

Welcome to the 21st century.

Welcome to the 21st century.
southerntofu changed title from rfc.tildeverse.org is a static website powered by Zola! to WIP: rfc.tildeverse.org is a static website powered by Zola! 2019-08-02 14:56:39 +00:00
ben requested changes 2019-08-02 17:28:45 +00:00
ben left a comment
Owner
Copy Link

looks great so far

looks great so far
config.toml Outdated
@ -0,0 +12,4 @@
# Whether to do syntax highlighting
# Theme can be customised by setting the `highlight_theme` variable to a theme supported by Zola
highlight_code = false
ben commented 2019-08-02 17:25:18 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

might be worth enabling this if we want to show code-snippets in future RFCs

might be worth enabling this if we want to show code-snippets in future RFCs
content/_index.md Outdated
@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+++
@ -0,0 +23,4 @@
An RFC should be submitted as a PR to the [git repo](https://tildegit.org/tildeverse/rfcs).
Until your RFC gets assigned a number, give it a draft name. For example, a draft name for an RFC to make tilde.chat allow IRC connections without SSL could be `draft-tilde-chat-without-ssl`.
ben commented 2019-08-02 17:25:53 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

maybe note that it should end with .md as the file extension

maybe note that it should end with `.md` as the file extension
templates/index.html Outdated
@ -0,0 +2,4 @@
<html lang="en">
<head>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://tilde.team/css/hacker.css">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/fork-awesome.css">
ben commented 2019-08-02 17:26:53 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

let's use get_url() here

let's use `get_url()` here
templates/index.html Outdated
@ -0,0 +3,4 @@
<head>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://tilde.team/css/hacker.css">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/fork-awesome.css">
<link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="96x96" href="/favicon-96x96.png">
ben commented 2019-08-02 17:27:13 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

also use get_url() here

also use `get_url()` here
templates/section.html Outdated
@ -0,0 +20,4 @@
{% endfor %}
</ul>
<!--
<h1>Drafts</h1>
ben commented 2019-08-02 17:28:20 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

let's add this back in for the future when we do have draft RFCs

let's add this back in for the future when we do have draft RFCs
khuxkm commented 2019-08-02 18:01:03 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

Is there a particular use for this? I very much prefer to use PHP, as somebody who has done many things with static sites.

Also "welcome to the 21st century" is not a great way to start off the message of a pull request wanting serious changes.

Also, this should be an RFC stating the change that will be made.

Just nitpicking :P

Is there a particular use for this? I very much prefer to use PHP, as somebody who has done many things with static sites. Also "welcome to the 21st century" is not a great way to start off the message of a pull request wanting serious changes. Also, this should be an RFC stating the change that will be made. Just nitpicking :P
ben commented 2019-08-03 01:11:50 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

Looks good to me. Feel free to remove the WIP: from the PR title when you feel it's ready

Looks good to me. Feel free to remove the `WIP: ` from the PR title when you feel it's ready
southerntofu commented 2019-08-03 01:18:58 +00:00
Author
First-time contributor
Copy Link

i did the requested changes although gitea didn't pickup templates/section.html.

For me, there's still a few things to address:

  • add 10 latest drafts/RFCs to the homepage
  • add authorship taxonomy
  • how to deal with drafts (i'll make a separate comment about this)

Also, this should be an RFC stating the change that will be made.

Of course. This is just a work in progress and should not be merged until all docs and RFCs are updated accordingly, which requires some thinking through. I'll open a separate ticket for this

i did the requested changes although gitea didn't pickup `templates/section.html`. For me, there's still a few things to address: - [ ] add 10 latest drafts/RFCs to the homepage - [ ] add authorship taxonomy - [ ] how to deal with drafts (i'll make a separate comment about this) > Also, this should be an RFC stating the change that will be made. Of course. This is just a work in progress and should not be merged until all docs and RFCs are updated accordingly, which requires some thinking through. I'll open a separate ticket for this
ben commented 2019-08-03 01:21:05 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

AFAIK drafts are just RFCs that don't have a status of Accepted which should be trivial to loop through as we do for the other RFCs

AFAIK drafts are just RFCs that don't have a status of `Accepted` which should be trivial to loop through as we do for the other RFCs
southerntofu commented 2019-08-03 01:32:06 +00:00
Author
First-time contributor
Copy Link

Here's a few thought about drafts.

CMS and SSG understand a draft as something not published. So we can't use their internal features for RFC drafts.

They're a semantically different kind of content, but structurally identical to RFCs. So either a taxonomy or a simpler piece of metadata will do the trick.

The question is whether the status of a RFC is binary: accepted/draft. I heard it cannot be refused (because it will be removed from the repo instead), but can it be some other things?

If it's binary, i feel like we don't need a status field because only published RFCs are assigned a number. So if an RFC doesn't have a number, it's a draft. Makes sense so far?

If my assumptions thus far are correct, i would propose to store the drafts in a separate folder: content/drafts. They would be rendered by the same template but the URL would be different (/drafts/rfc-via-webmention/).

This would allow two things:

  • on the template side of things: each section gets rendered separately without overlapping, and the index HTML/RSS output captures new items from both sections
  • on the contribution side of things: having a separate folder for drafts allows the use of a submodule dedicated to drafts, to which we could give bots access to enable RFC contribution gateways (email, indieweb, etc) without giving it access to the main repo

Any thoughts?

Here's a few thought about drafts. CMS and SSG understand a draft as something not published. So we can't use their internal features for RFC drafts. They're a semantically different kind of content, but structurally identical to RFCs. So either a taxonomy or a simpler piece of metadata will do the trick. The question is whether the status of a RFC is binary: accepted/draft. I heard it cannot be refused (because it will be removed from the repo instead), but can it be some other things? If it's binary, i feel like we don't need a status field because only published RFCs are assigned a number. So if an RFC doesn't have a number, it's a draft. Makes sense so far? If my assumptions thus far are correct, i would propose to store the drafts in a separate folder: `content/drafts`. They would be rendered by the same template but the URL would be different (`/drafts/rfc-via-webmention/`). This would allow two things: - on the template side of things: each section gets rendered separately without overlapping, and the index HTML/RSS output captures new items from both sections - on the contribution side of things: having a separate folder for drafts allows the use of a submodule dedicated to drafts, to which we could give bots access to enable RFC contribution gateways (email, indieweb, etc) without giving it access to the main repo Any thoughts?
This pull request has changes conflicting with the target branch.
  • header.php
You can also view command line instructions.

Step 1:

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.
git checkout -b southerntofu-master master
git pull master

Step 2:

Merge the changes and update on Gitea.
git checkout master
git merge --no-ff southerntofu-master
git push origin master
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels
No items
No Label
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: tildeverse/rfcs#9
No description provided.
Delete Branch "southerntofu/rfcs:master"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?