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.

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

Add references for contributing to latest and earlier versions of Volto #6184

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jul 24, 2024

Conversation

stevepiercy
Copy link
Collaborator

@stevepiercy stevepiercy commented Jul 22, 2024

Closes #6157


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://volto--6184.org.readthedocs.build/

Copy link

netlify bot commented Jul 22, 2024

Deploy Preview for plone-components canceled.

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 772ca5a
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/plone-components/deploys/66a1643a8932e40008684c48

@stevepiercy
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'm not sure why CI checks fail, as this PR is only about docs.

This chapter describes how to develop the latest version of Volto core and its libraries, packages, and apps as open source software contributions.

```{seealso}
For previous versions of Volto core, you should follow the guide {doc}`plone:contributing/core/index`.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@stevepiercy This is wrong because the plone contribute to core describes only how to contribute to Plone core using buildout
https://6.docs.plone.org/contributing/core/index.html

In previous versions of Volto we didn't teach that users should use the buildout core to develop either.
We had the same setup to start the backend using the make command although with previous naming.
For me it makes more sense for previous versions of Volto if docker installation isn't preferred to reffer to the api folder which gives info on how to create the backend this way https://github.com/plone/volto/tree/17.x.x/api

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Alternatively, we don't write anything as the flow is always contributing to the main branch followed by backports if it's not a breaking change.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You're right. Plus docs have changed significantly. I updated the text in 076d250. One more review please!

@ichim-david
Copy link
Member

I'm not sure why CI checks fail, as this PR is only about docs.

There seems to be a flake in the reccurence-widget test, simply running the failed tests brought them to green
reccurrence-failure

@stevepiercy stevepiercy requested a review from ichim-david July 23, 2024 11:13
Copy link
Member

@wesleybl wesleybl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

@stevepiercy
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The failing check is a flaky test, totally unrelated to docs. Merging. Thanks for your help!

@stevepiercy stevepiercy merged commit 808bdcf into main Jul 24, 2024
70 of 71 checks passed
@stevepiercy stevepiercy deleted the docs-context-buildout branch July 24, 2024 20:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Done
Status: Done
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Backend takes time to start
3 participants