Improve Contributing.md: Guide For First Contributions

by Admin 55 views
How should we improve Contributing.md?

Hey everyone!

We've noticed a recent uptick in issues and pull requests that, frankly, don't seem quite aligned with the core mission of genuinely improving the first-contributions project. Some changes feel a bit random, or perhaps changes for the sake of change, and it's got us thinking about how we can better guide newcomers. Check out some examples of issues and pull requests we've been seeing:

Issues:

Pull Requests:

So, the big question is: can we refine our Contributing.md to better channel contributions and ensure they're truly beneficial? Let's dive into some specific ideas and suggestions to make contributing to this project an even better experience for everyone involved.

Enhancing Contributing.md: A Collaborative Discussion

The goal of Contributing.md is to guide new contributors on how to effectively participate in the project. A well-crafted document sets clear expectations, reduces confusion, and ensures that contributions align with the project's goals. If Contributing.md isn't clear, contributors may end up spending time on changes that don't get merged, which can be frustrating for everyone. So, how can we make it better? Let's brainstorm some concrete improvements.

Checking for help wanted Label

One potential improvement is emphasizing the importance of the help wanted label. We could add a section that explicitly instructs contributors to look for issues marked with this label before starting any work. This ensures that contributors are focusing on tasks that the maintainers have already identified as needing assistance. For example, the improved Contributing.md could include text like:

"Before you start working on a new feature or bug fix, check the issue tracker for issues labeled help wanted. These issues are specifically marked as areas where contributions are needed, and working on them increases the likelihood that your contribution will be valuable and accepted." This simple step can save contributors time and effort, while also ensuring that maintainers receive help where it's most needed.

Making this check a standard part of the contribution process will reduce the chances of contributors working on something that doesn't align with the project's priorities. By highlighting issues that the maintainers need help with, new contributors can find targeted ways to assist, making the experience mutually beneficial. It also helps maintainers focus their efforts on reviewing and merging meaningful changes, improving the overall efficiency of the project.

Requiring Confirmation for Readme Changes

Another critical area for improvement is changes to the Readme. The Readme file is often the first thing new users see when visiting the repository, so it's important that any changes are carefully considered and aligned with the project's goals. We can include a guideline that explicitly requires contributors to obtain confirmation from maintainers before making changes to the Readme. The revised Contributing.md could state:

"If you're planning to make changes to the Readme file, please open an issue or start a discussion to get confirmation from the maintainers before submitting a pull request. This ensures that the changes align with the project's goals and are consistent with the overall documentation."

Requiring this confirmation step will prevent well-intentioned but ultimately unnecessary or misaligned changes to the Readme. Maintainers can provide valuable context and guidance, ensuring that any updates are accurate, relevant, and beneficial to the broader user community. This process will improve the quality and consistency of the Readme, making it a more valuable resource for newcomers and experienced users alike.

This approach will help avoid situations where multiple contributors make conflicting changes to the Readme simultaneously, reducing the workload on maintainers and ensuring that the most appropriate updates are implemented. By establishing a clear process for Readme modifications, the project can maintain a high standard of documentation quality and relevance.

Emphasizing the