Skip to content

Convert README to reStructuredText so it looks good on PyPI #7

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

Closed
vitorbaptista opened this issue Nov 26, 2015 · 13 comments
Closed

Convert README to reStructuredText so it looks good on PyPI #7

vitorbaptista opened this issue Nov 26, 2015 · 13 comments

Comments

@vitorbaptista
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@vitorbaptista
Copy link
Contributor Author

http://pandoc.org/try/ converted the README with no issues 👍

@pwalsh
Copy link
Contributor

pwalsh commented Nov 26, 2015

hmm. not too excited about this. I much prefer we standardise on markdown for contributors on github, rather than rst for a handful of readers on pypi.

vitorbaptista added a commit to vitorbaptista/datapackage-registry-py that referenced this issue Nov 26, 2015
@brew
Copy link
Contributor

brew commented Nov 27, 2015

+1 @pwalsh

@pwalsh
Copy link
Contributor

pwalsh commented Nov 27, 2015

@vitorbaptista please revert.

@pwalsh pwalsh reopened this Nov 27, 2015
@vitorbaptista
Copy link
Contributor Author

GitHub supports both Markdown and rst, so it doesn't make much difference. The difference is only when writing the README, which should be quite rare and painless.

Actually, I think reStructuredText is more common in Python packages than Markdown (probably because of pypi). See some examples:

https://github.com/django/django/blob/master/README.rst
https://github.com/Pylons/pylons/blob/master/README.rst
https://github.com/pypa/pip/blob/develop/README.rst
https://github.com/kennethreitz/requests/blob/master/README.rst
https://github.com/zzzeek/sqlalchemy/blob/master/README.rst
https://github.com/ckan/ckan/blob/master/README.rst

I'm OK with reverting, though. It's not a big issue.

@brew
Copy link
Contributor

brew commented Nov 27, 2015

Just my experience: I hate updating docs written in RST, so I'm less likely to update them. I consider Pypi's lack of support for md a bug.

@pwalsh
Copy link
Contributor

pwalsh commented Nov 27, 2015

I've also done my share of readme's in RST but can never remember the syntax.

@vitorbaptista
Copy link
Contributor Author

It would be great if PyPI supported markdown, but I don't think it will anytime soon. I'm also more used to markdown, but using rst doesn't bother me.

In the end, shall I keep it or revert? I'm OK with both.

@femtotrader
Copy link

You may consider https://github.com/msabramo/setuptools-markdown

but some people hate it femtotrader/pandas_talib#8

@vitorbaptista
Copy link
Contributor Author

Wow, good job on handling that guy's aggressiveness, @femtotrader 👏

Anyway, I wouldn't like to add a dependency just to write markdown instead of rst. Too much hassle for a few lines of text. I'm OK with either keeping it as it is or reverting this issue. I just don't want to spend too much time bikeshedding here.

@roll
Copy link

roll commented Nov 27, 2015

Conversion with pandoc can be part of Travis build before upload to PyPi I suppose. It will be just a dev dependency.

@pwalsh
Copy link
Contributor

pwalsh commented Nov 27, 2015

Request to revert still stands: OKI uses markdown for readme ;).

vitorbaptista added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 29, 2015
vitorbaptista added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 29, 2015
This reverts commit 079988c.

Conflicts:
	README.rst
@vitorbaptista
Copy link
Contributor Author

Done 👍

vitorbaptista added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 29, 2015
vitorbaptista added a commit to frictionlessdata/datapackage-py that referenced this issue Nov 30, 2015
@vitorbaptista vitorbaptista removed their assignment Apr 30, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants