[doc]: Add create workspace doc #13766
Conversation
rustbot
added
A-documenting-cargo-itself
| - The crate namespace at the Cargo level is flat. The tree layout creates another hierarchy and increases the possibility of inconsistencies. | ||
| - With a flat structure, adding or splitting crates is very easy. | ||
| - Even larger flattened lists are easier to see at a glance and easier to maintain than smaller tree structures. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This feels like its blurring the line between a guide-level document and the best practices examples that would hang off the reference.
Seeing this proposed document, I feel like its not pulling enough weight and I wonder if we should first focus in that examples / practices document
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps you mean that if add this section it might become a best practice type of article rather than an instructional one. Then I have adjusted the article to make it more suitable as an instructional article for newbies.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there anything else that needs to be changed on this, please?
That went in the opposite direction of what I was suggesting. I'll have to give this more time to think about this to avoid any bias from my own way of wanting to do things.
heisen-li
force-pushed
the
workspace_example
branch
from
000267d to
4e4d429
Compare
|
Is there anything else that needs to be changed on this, please? |
| [package] | ||
| name = "new_workspace" | ||
| version = "0.1.0" | ||
| edition = "2021" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This feels odd because new_workspace is actually a package. The step-by-step guide is not an ideal workflow, and even more confusing at this moment. Admittedly this is the tool's failure #8365. I wonder if we want to block this on that.
|
This PR has been stale for a while, and not in a good state of merging. I am going to close now. Thank you for being interested in improving documentations! |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
4 participants
What does this PR try to resolve?
The second part of #13580.
There was a discussion in the previous issue and it looks like there are preliminary results?
Reference:
#13580 (comment)
#13580 (comment)