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

Move all crate attributes after the docs #9560

Closed

Conversation

tguichaoua
Copy link
Contributor

Objective

Solution

  • Move crate attributes after the crate docs.

@nicopap nicopap added C-Docs An addition or correction to our documentation C-Code-Quality A section of code that is hard to understand or change labels Aug 24, 2023
@nicopap nicopap added the S-Ready-For-Final-Review This PR has been approved by the community. It's ready for a maintainer to consider merging it label Aug 24, 2023
@mockersf
Copy link
Member

I think having the attributes first make more sense, as they are targeted at contributors who will be the ones opening the files. Doc is targeted at users who will most of the time view them through another mean than opening the file

@mockersf mockersf added the X-Controversial There is active debate or serious implications around merging this PR label Aug 24, 2023
@JoJoJet
Copy link
Member

JoJoJet commented Aug 26, 2023

Whether the attributes go before or after the docs, we should at least stick to a consistent style. IIRC, it currently differs depending on the crate which is ugly and confusing.

@janhohenheim janhohenheim added S-Adopt-Me The original PR author has no intent to complete this work. Pick me up! S-Ready-For-Final-Review This PR has been approved by the community. It's ready for a maintainer to consider merging it and removed S-Ready-For-Final-Review This PR has been approved by the community. It's ready for a maintainer to consider merging it labels Jul 1, 2024
@bas-ie
Copy link
Contributor

bas-ie commented Sep 22, 2024

I'd be happy to clean this one up, but I guess we might need more of a consensus? I reckon the point @mockersf makes is pretty valid (documentation in source files is for generators and tooling, not for ease of reading).

Could also close out #9558 if we can get some agreement?

@tguichaoua
Copy link
Contributor Author

I reckon the point @mockersf makes is pretty valid (documentation in source files is for generators and tooling, not for ease of reading).

I think with time I finally agree with this point. I'll close this PR and let you handle this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
C-Code-Quality A section of code that is hard to understand or change C-Docs An addition or correction to our documentation S-Adopt-Me The original PR author has no intent to complete this work. Pick me up! S-Ready-For-Final-Review This PR has been approved by the community. It's ready for a maintainer to consider merging it X-Controversial There is active debate or serious implications around merging this PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants