Skip to content

Backport of #5706 to v4.x - #5983

Closed
svozza wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:v4.x-stagingfrom
svozza:v4.x-staging
Closed

Backport of #5706 to v4.x#5983
svozza wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:v4.x-stagingfrom
svozza:v4.x-staging

Conversation

@svozza

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This is a backport of #5706 (doc: align doc/api/tls.markdown with style guide) to the v4.x-staging branch as requested @thealphanerd.

@jasnell

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@svozza ... can you rebase your branch to the current v4.x-staging to clear out the extraneous commits here?

@svozza

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Oh this is weird, I ddn't see all those extra commits. I'm not actually sure how this happened. I didn't have the v4.x-staging branch before I did this change. All I did was this:

git checkout -b v4.x-staging upstream/v4.x-staging
git cherry-pick 4f6ad5c
git push -u origin v4.x-staging

My branch said it was only 1 commit ahead when I made the PR and when I do git rebase upstream/v4.x-staging it tells me I'm up to date.

@svozza

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

OK. I think I've fixed it.

Comment threaddoc/api/tls.markdown Outdated

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should not have made it into the backport

ALPN support is only on v5.x +

#2564

Please move this section

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah yes, I wasn't sure about that ALPN stuff. I'll remove the references.

@MylesBorins

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@svozza when you cherry picked did you have conflicts? It appears to me like you merged all of the latest changes as opposed to manually handling the conflicts, as such we have a bunch of documentation in here about ALPN which is not a feature in v4.x

I would suggest you might find it easier in the sections with conflicts to opt for the version present in v4, not in your commit and simply reaudit those sections to make sure they are correct

@svozza

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Done.

Comment threaddoc/api/tls.markdown Outdated

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

where did this come from?

@MylesBorins

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@svozza I'm still seeing quite a bit of information in here of v5 specific documentation. Would you be open to redoing this fix from scratch using the v4 doc? Sorry for being tight on this, but I really don't want to accidentally merge incorrect docs

@svozza

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Yeah, no problem. I think I made a mess of the rebase.

@MylesBorins

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@svozza thanks for all the hard work!

@MylesBorins

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@svozza let me know if I can help with anything

@svozza

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Really sorry about the delay, will be able to get to it tonight though!

@svozza

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

So I just blew away the branch and started over. No rebasing or any messing around and I think it worked out much better.

@whitlockjc

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I apologize, I was commenting on a backport after the original commit was already accepted. I've removed my nits and will instead address these in a future PR

@svozza

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Oh right, I was in the process of fixing them! :) I agree that 'This event is emitted...` reads better btw.

@MylesBorins

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@whitlockjc the review is appreciated. This backport ended up having to be a complete rewrite due to the differences (to a certain extent).

@whitlockjc

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Well, if I wasn't out of line, let me add them back. Thanks for stepping in @thealphanerd and @svozza for being so willing to help. <3.

Comment threaddoc/api/tls.markdown Outdated

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For consistency, we might use "This event is emitted" like we did for the 'secure' event.

Comment threaddoc/api/tls.markdown Outdated

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same as above for 'clientError' event.

Brings tls.markdown into alignment with the node.js
styleguide, specifically regarding the use of
personal pronouns. Also, fixes various typos,
punctuation errors, missing definite/indefinite
articles and other minor grammatical issues.
PR-URL: nodejs#5706
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
@svozza

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Think I got them all!

@whitlockjc

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I'll take another peek. I also see a number of places where we're using a trailing . for option/argument descriptions that themselves are not full sentences. These have been there for some time and for consistency, using what was there makes sense. But if you wanted to clean those up, I wouldn't mind. (I might be in the wrong on that one so I'll state my opinion and let someone else decide.)

@whitlockjc

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@svozza Thanks for addressing the NOTE: and event inconsistencies. The inconsistencies with the trailing periods for argument/option documentation is rampant but this did not start with you.

If no one else has an opinion on the argument/option documentation inconsistencies, LGTM.

@svozza

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Yeah, I really wasn't sure what to do there so I left it originally. I was leaning towards putting fullstops everywhere but thought it might be best not to go down that rabbithole.

@whitlockjc

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Let's see what @thealphanerd has to say. Others welcome of course as well but he was last involved before myself. Great job regardless.

@MylesBorins

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

If something is consistent in the docs and not specific to this change I think it should come in another update

@MylesBorinsMylesBorins self-assigned this Apr 14, 2016
@whitlockjc

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@thealphanerd That's what I was thinking. Seems you've assigned to yourself so I'll step out and let you merge when it's ready. Thanks for stepping in.

@MylesBorins

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

cool.. can I get an official LGTM from you @whitlockjc

@jasnell

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

ping @whitlockjc

@MylesBorins

MylesBorins commented Jun 6, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

ping @whitlockjc

I'm going to close for now, please feel free to reopen

@MylesBorinsMylesBorins removed their assignment Dec 27, 2016
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

@svozza@jasnell@MylesBorins@whitlockjc@mscdex@Fishrock123