Clarify manifest format docs for [badges] section - #7694
Conversation
Previously the `[badges]` section documentation was mixed in with the `[package]` section. This extracts it out under its own heading. This also pulls the `license` and `license-file` field documentation out of the package metadata code block. It sets the example license to “MIT OR Apache-2.0” since that is the typical licensing scheme for many crates. This includes minor rewrites for clarity and to match the register of the rest of the document. This resolves issue #7691.
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @Eh2406 (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Looks good to me, @ehuss Thoughts? |
|
Looks great, thank you! |
|
📌 Commit 80e37c3 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
⌛ Testing commit 80e37c3 with merge 6f9b77a11b0fec288128af5a7df04da7d841ca45... |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-azure |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
… r=ehuss Clarify manifest format docs for [badges] section Previously the `[badges]` section documentation was mixed in with the `[package]` section. This extracts it out under its own heading. This also pulls the `license` and `license-file` field documentation out of the package metadata code block. It sets the example license to “MIT OR Apache-2.0” since that is the typical licensing scheme for many crates. This includes minor rewrites for clarity and to match the register of the rest of the document. This resolves issue #7691.
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-azure |
5 participants
Previously the
[badges]section documentation was mixed in with the[package]section. This extracts it out under its own heading.This also pulls the
licenseandlicense-filefield documentation out of the package metadata code block. It sets the example license to “MIT OR Apache-2.0” since that is the typical licensing scheme for many crates.This includes minor rewrites for clarity and to match the register of the rest of the document.
This resolves issue #7691.