Skip to content

Restructure and flesh out contributing guides: for authors and reviewers #385

@ateucher

Description

@ateucher

As discussed in coworking with @jules32 and @danielfromearth, we need to improve the contributing guide, for both authors and reviewers.

This is a draft of the structure/outline of the things we need to help contributors and reviewers:

  • Guide for authors
    • Mechanics (git/github, using template, PR etc)
    • Content guidance:
      • This is a place I would write a spec or editorial doc that lists each heading, whether it’s required, and why
      • Scope
      • Required vs optional sections
      • Length
      • Style (code cells and markdown content)
      • Pedagogy
    • Meta: has it been taught/field-tested, does it run (local/hub)
  • Guide for reviewers
  • Templates:
    • How-to (.qmd and .ipynb)
    • Tutorial (.qmd and .ipynb)
  • Github actions for PR checking:
    • Format (ruff, air)
    • Check for required sections (pre-commit?)
    • Run the notebook?

Things to consider:

  • How to separate mechanics from content guidance? We don't want to scare away contributors with heavy, technical mechanics of git etc.
  • Templates - include "Shining examples". Show don't tell

Resources:

Related pre-existing issues:

#238
#242
#120
#245

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions