-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 81
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
Feature request: allow writing a DEP in Markdown as well as rST #85
Comments
+1 to markdown and a big +1 to semantic line breaks. Although I love rST, it is a little less flexible and certainly less familiar to the average dev than markdown. Constraining the use of rST to the documentation (where it shines) sounds fine to me. |
So – does this change require a DEP? 😄 should I just make a PR? This was in the original list of proposed changes from @jacobian – it feels like a quick win compared to the other ones, can I make a PR already? I’d love to convert #84 to Markdown to try this out. |
Reflecting on #28 and my first draft DEP in #84 – I’d like the ability to write a DEP in Markdown, as Jacob suggested on the forum: Updating our DEP process / DEP 1. There are a few reasons for this:
I believe it would greatly simplify drafting DEPs if people were able to write them in a language that they’re more familiar with than reStructuredText. It also creates a significant amount of friction if we have to always convert syntax between a forum post and a DEP. We don’t have to rewrite existing DEPs, they’re fine as-is in rST. We would need to:
DEP 1 on format
Here is what DEP 1 has to say about format for reference:
I’d also recommend dropping the requirement to hard-wrap lines at 80 characters for prose, for future Markdown and reStructuredText DEPs. It makes it harder to read content in the DEP’s source format, and creates silly diffs. If we want to retain specific line break guidelines, I would recommend Semantic Line Breaks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: