feat: add home page - #149
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure we should have a "Trusted By" section. I think we'd be the first project in the foundation to do that. I'd rather avoid it for now.
That said, I do think we should add a sponsors section to the homepage, since that actually provides value to our sponsors.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@avivkeller wdyt ?, i just replicated the reference u pasted in #96
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They are brands and they may or may not use us (I have no idea about most of them), but naming them kind of gives the impression that “we’ve already talked to them to have them there” (and it’s also marketing for them, while many of them don’t give us anything in return).
Also, it doesn’t really bring benefits. It’s better to focus on sponsors, since they actually provide funding that helps us keep going.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@TusharThakur04 The image I showed was a demo, but if Sebastian doesn't think it fits, we can remove it. What if we replace it with, as he said "Sponsored by"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sure, just wanted to confirm.
as we have whole separate page for the sposors, i was thinking of adding the BackerWall and a link to the sponsors page
wdyt?
| const [isCopied, setIsCopied] = useState(false); | ||
|
|
||
| const handleCopy = async () => { | ||
| const textToCopy = activeSyntax === 'js' ? jsCode : mjsCode; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We also support configuration files written in TypeScript
| import path from 'path'; | ||
| import { fileURLToPath } from 'url'; | ||
|
|
||
| const __dirname = path.dirname(fileURLToPath(import.meta.url)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| const __dirname = path.dirname(fileURLToPath(import.meta.url)); |
| entry: './src/index.js', | ||
| output: { | ||
| filename: 'bundle.js', | ||
| path: path.resolve(__dirname, 'dist') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| path: path.resolve(__dirname, 'dist') | |
| path: path.resolve(import.meta.dirname, 'dist') |
|
|
||
| import styles from './index.module.css'; | ||
|
|
||
| import { Prism as SyntaxHighlighter } from 'react-syntax-highlighter'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rather than adding a needless dependency, I've opened nodejs/doc-kit#845 to allow us to supply this via Markdown.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
will it work ? because the HomeLayout is all react driven and index.md only exposes the layout prop so that homelayout can be displayed at the root level.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you try using the branch to test it? That way, we'll know whether it would work
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can, just waiting for the doc-kit PR to land, but I can set up a #-based npm install to test
|
I feel that the home page should be pretty simple. Think of nodejs.org, but even simpler as all it is needed is a npm i webpack. (maybe with multiple tabs per package manager) but I wouldn't add sponsors to home page, and keep home page a simple hero. |
|
@TusharThakur04 MDX support landed |
|
@ovflowd I like the bigger design with more basic info on config, sponsors, etc |
I actually prefer the current design. I don't think following the Node.js design is a good idea, and I think sponsors should be part of the homepage, similar to ESLint or Vue.js. We should give value to that money, and the homepage is naturally the most visited page. We already have a separate sponsors page, but that's a different thing and doesn't replace having a small sponsors section on the homepage. That said, I think this is more of a TSC decision, and it's something we should discuss internally. |
233c7ad to
d979a72
Compare
|
@avivkeller now code block is rendering through the doc-kit mdx support and i have also pushed the homesponsors section, happy to revert if tsc doesnt want it |
146238c to
d80d757
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we share a lot of this logic with the main sponsors section, i.e. import helpers from there?
| module.exports = { | ||
| entry: './src/index.js', | ||
| output: { | ||
| filename: 'bundle.js', | ||
| path: path.resolve(\_\_dirname, 'dist'), | ||
| }, | ||
| mode: 'production', | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you fix the indentation here?
|
@bjohansebas can you re-review? |
can we increase the width of the codebox to the left? So the box size doesn't shift on the different snippets? |
titles should be CommonJS, ESM, TypeScript |
That's a doc kit bug, not one here |
Should have a 2nd line with the quick npm/pnpm/etc install path, like others have |
i think styling of codeblock is at the doc-kit side |
i am gonna build the download page too, i can modify this later with a link to download page, wdyt? |
Is it? Doesn't it support the custom titles? |
Strong -1, competitors and friends such as eslint have the download piece right on the home page. I don't think we need a download page at all, I think I already shared this before. This isn't like Node.js where we have multiple install paths. This is for all intends and purposes and for all variants a single line |
|
i always thought we did, as described in #7 under milestone 4 (core pages) , i will surely modify the home page to incorporate the installation process |
|
although we have an installation guide |
@avivkeller was that a mishap? I thought we agreed from the go that no download page would be added? |
That page should be updated to recommend |
When we originally created the milestones, we included it. I'm still in favor of having a dedicated page we can link to for downloads. Should the main page change, we don't want installation information to be seemingly 'moved'. |
Not currently, no, I'm tracking the bug, I marked it good first issue, but I can just resolve it myself. |
|
I know we have a few open discussion points, but I'm landing this since, it completes what it was designed to do, and no one is 'against' this changeset. We can add the nitty gritty (eg download information) separately with more discussion. |
5 participants
Closes: #96
Summary
This PR adds the Home Page
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
feat
Did you add tests for your changes?
no
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
no
If relevant, what needs to be documented once your changes are merged or what have you already documented?
Use of AI
used for discussion and repetitive tasks