FINERACT-2383: Modernize and correct README page

[steinwinde]

Description

This is a general overhaul of the existing README page: Corrects many details, removes sections, adds structure etc.

Checklist

Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!

• Write the commit message as per https://github.com/apache/fineract/#pull-requests
• Acknowledge that we will not review PRs that are not passing the build ("green") - it is your responsibility to get a proposed PR to pass the build, not primarily the project's maintainers.
• Create/update unit or integration tests for verifying the changes made.
• Follow coding conventions at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Coding+Conventions.
• Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation at fineract-provider/src/main/resources/static/legacy-docs/apiLive.htm with details of any API changes
• Submission is not a "code dump". (Large changes can be made "in repository" via a branch. Ask on the developer mailing list for guidance, if required.)

FYI our guidelines for code reviews are at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Code+Review+Guide.

[jdailey]

This is great progress. I would however like to be even more explicit about not referencing Mifos in the Readme. To reference a Vendor in the README is highly irregular in any other apache project.

I think it might be appropriate to have other open source projects listed somewhere... i.e. "the following projects have committed to work on or with Fineract - external site referenced here warning links take you way from Apache.org... ... then with some links to those GitHub repos. But describing a packaging approach with Mifos (as a vendor) is not appropriate.

It would more appropriate to have a listing of all known vendors of Fineract on the website, not the README.

It fundamentally is against the Vendor neutrality obligation of the project.

[jdailey]

LGTM

[jdailey]

LGTM

[meonkeys]

Hi guys! I'd like to review and work together on this too. I was busy with the release yesterday and I'm taking the day off today, but briefly:

What was moved from the readme to the wiki, if anything? And to where?

What was moved from the readme to the official docs/manual (asciidoc), if anything? (looks like nothing unless it was done outside this pull request)

Thanks for not including a TOC, I'm really against having one.

I'd still like to see the readme further reduced in size, and some stuff moved to wiki or official docs.

Felix, I like your edits to CONTRIBUTING but I don't think we want a large CONTRIBUTING file, do we? I guess I don't have a strong opinion there, I'm just imagining README and CONTRIBUTING are short and sweet, leading to details elsewhere (wiki or official doc).

@jdailey and @steinwinde please have another look at https://codeberg.org/meonkeys/fineract-brief-readme

Can we please use the stuff under "repository analytics"? You can just copy and paste the raw HTML as-is. It looks awesome and will draw people in. Trust me. :-)

I don't want to get into the "Mifos" argument but I do think it's important to link to demos and related software. Use whatever disclaimers you want, but let's not try to just eliminate any reference to Mifos just for the sake of doing so. Call it out as a vendor, sure, that'll help people distinguish it. Here's an idea: is Mifos actually a sponsor? Call it out as such. Like Airflow: https://github.com/apache/airflow#sponsors and many others.

[jdailey]

I agree with trying to get to a more minimal version and moving content to the asciidocs (documentation) primarily. very little should move back to the Wiki.

I was confused what was moving where but I think the README needs work, so as long as Felix is moving it forward, I was wanting to accept it, and I thought he already looked at your version. ?

Lastly, I'm trying to reduce the confusion around the role of Mifos in Fineract and to build the Fineract project into a more normal Apache project. That's it.

[IOhacker]

LGTM. This text is clearer in its description.

[meonkeys]

LGTM

[meonkeys]

I'd still like to see the readme further reduced in size. Please see my comment, above

[meonkeys]

#5067 (from just a few weeks ago) is super relevant to this work (and future documentation work), since--for example--the contributor guide includes instructions on running tests. So, part of the work is already done!