potiuk commented on PR #36969: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/36969#issuecomment-1908553450
Also - just to add @amoghrajesh - nice way of showing what I explained about sequence: <img width="517" alt="Screenshot 2024-01-24 at 17 47 49" src="https://github.com/apache/airflow/assets/595491/b6bfae42-8fba-4efc-b671-93a48ce9c259";> If you see what happens here: * main contribution docs has the numbers and is pretty well logically displayed in your IDE. The way how you learn contributing to airflow reflects that sequence, also when you are looking to change something in roles, - you look at the index and you know you should look at the top of the folder. Also I consider contributor's documentation as something of "tutorial" - I'd expect people to read it chapter-by-chapter because (except the last "advanced" parts which are kind of appendix), the contributors should really read it all to understand what they are doing (well obviously I know this is not happening in most cases and people will not read it at all, but when they ask about somthing I'd want to say to them - hey here is contributor's guide and you can find it here, but it would really be good if you read the whole thing from the beginning. Having a sequence there, makes it easy to know where is the beginning and where is the end In essence it's the very same thing we implemented in https://github.com/apache/airflow/tree/main/airflow/migrations/versions - initially those migration did not have those prefixes, and it was working just fine - because they refer to each other by hash. But it was impossible to know from those migrations when you were looking - ok what was before? and what it after? It was very difficult to see the sequence of things. * the testing folder on the other hand does not have the prefixesI. thought about it and deliberately decided not to add numbers here for two reasons - the number of those docs is much smaller, and also there is no real logical sequence you woudl want to see there, while unit tests are by far most frequent, all the others is really "if you touch the relevant part - you should go to particular test type". I would not even suggest the contributors to read those (that's why it's also one level deeper. When you read contributor's guide "back-to-back" - I'd expect you to know what kind of tests we have - but not necessarily go to the details of how to run them. Only when you run particular kind of test you should go in detail and read it. Or at least this is the context of the decisions I made when I've implemented the split. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
