[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D108502: [libc++][doc] Cleanup, normalize, and update projects status docs

[Christopher Di Bella via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

cjdb requested changes to this revision.
cjdb added a subscriber: zoecarver.
cjdb added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.

I'm with @mordante on splitting this up into two patches, but I can see why you've combined them.



================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Status/FormatPaper.csv:9
 [format.arg],"Class template basic_format_arg",,Mark de Wever,`D103357 <https://llvm.org/D103357>`__,Review,
-[format.arg],"Class template basic_format_arg - handle",,,,,,
-[format.arg],"Class template basic_format_arg - pointers",,,,,,
+[format.arg],"Class template basic_format_arg - handle",,,,,
+[format.arg],"Class template basic_format_arg - pointers",,,,,
----------------
It'd be great if you could inject `Not started` and `Unassigned` into everything that's blank.


================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Status/RangesPaper.csv:2
 Section,Description,Dependencies,Assignee,Complete
-[tuple.helper],Update <tuple> includes.,None,Unassigned,Not started
+[tuple.helper],Update <tuple> includes.,None,Unassigned,|Not Started|
 `[range.cmp] <http://wg21.link/range.cmp>`_,"| `ranges::equal_to <https://llvm.org/D100429>`_
----------------
Please leave this as `Sentence case` (similarly elsewhere).

Alternatively: abandon all changes to this file, as it'll probably get deleted once P0896 is fully implemented. This doc exists mainly to help @zoecarver, @ldionne, and me coordinate who's doing what, and I'm okay with it being a bit different.


================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Status/RangesPaper.csv:8
 | `ranges::less_equal <https://llvm.org/D100429>`_
-| `ranges::greater_equal <https://llvm.org/D100429>`_",None,Zoe Carver,✅
+| `ranges::greater_equal <https://llvm.org/D100429>`_",None,Zoe Carver,|Complete|
 `[readable.traits] <http://wg21.link/readable.traits>`_,"| `indirectly_readable_traits <https://llvm.org/D99461>`_
----------------
mumbleskates wrote:
> Mordante wrote:
> > Why change this? I'm not working on Ranges so don't have a strong opinion. But I assume the authors picked the checkmark since they prefer it that way.
> Accessibility; consistency; ability to enter it in without hunting down another check mark and copy-pasting it.
> 
> Assuming we want to keep the check marks for some reason it's better to create an entry in Styles.rst like `.. |checkmark| unicode:: U+2705` and use that.
> 
> This is mostly cjdb's domain, I'll leave it up to him whether he prefers text or a check mark.
No strong preference, as copy/pasting a checkmark is pretty trivial now that it's being used in this file.
As for why we chose checkmarks? No clue. Possibly to make it visually distinct from text-based `Not started` and `In progress`, which arguably does have a benefit.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D108502/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D108502