Skip to content

Rework the documentation based on the renaming of the project #154

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.

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

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Nov 18, 2022

Conversation

pradyunsg
Copy link
Member

Toward #136

@takluyver I just noticed #152 (🤦🏽) and this has a few overlapping changes with that.

This makes Sphinx generate the anchors correctly.
This uses the more modern name and points users to the more complete
documentation site for details.
This removes yet-another location where a PEP was directly referenced.
This updates the documentation theme, content and structure, following
a similar pattern to what the `installer` package follows.
This class is not used or tested within this codebase.
@@ -1,20 +0,0 @@
# Minimal makefile for Sphinx documentation
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there a reason to drop the Makefile? make html is how I'm used to building Sphinx docs locally - am I out of date?

Copy link
Member Author

@pradyunsg pradyunsg Nov 10, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For the last question: Maybe? :P

I tend to run sphinx-build docs build/docs / sphinx-autobuild docs build/docs, which I find straightforward-enough. I am down to add a tox target for the documentation build instead -- since realistically, there's both environment management and the documentation build command that are reasonably coupled. I'm ambivalent on the make html but if we do want to keep those, I'd prefer to file a follow up adding those back, as generated by the latest Sphinx version.

@takluyver
Copy link
Member

Thanks! No worries about the conflict with #152; I'll fix them once this is in.

pradyunsg and others added 3 commits November 6, 2022 12:35
Co-authored-by: Thomas Kluyver <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Kluyver <[email protected]>
@pradyunsg
Copy link
Member Author

@takluyver A gentle nudge for a re-review. :)

@pradyunsg
Copy link
Member Author

On the basis that:

  • we can address any potential feedback around the documentation in a follow up
  • things around reaching the pypa/pep517 are a bit confusing without this change
  • this is a significant-enough improvement to the docs overall
  • it's easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission

I'm gonna go ahead and merge this without waiting on a re-review. If someone reckons that might be overstepping or would otherwise prefer that I wait in the future, please let me know!

@pradyunsg pradyunsg merged commit 5694964 into pypa:main Nov 18, 2022
@pradyunsg pradyunsg deleted the new-docs branch November 18, 2022 12:59
@takluyver
Copy link
Member

Thanks Pradyun, and sorry I didn't get around to reviewing it again - I'm happy, in any case.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants