Add Contributing page to site

[chrisdel101]

This is realization of #1608.
Includes:

• New page under resources tab to see contributing page
• This now sends users from CONTRIBUTING.md to website page
• translation.md includes - thought it would be easier for contributors to find and update this page when doing translations.
• This is nearly all written content. Anything that is not liked can be changed - so let me know if you don't like something, or something is wrong.

Please review:

• I refer to Express as Express Framework and sometimes as Express JS. Not sure what the correct language is. Would be good to have it consistent.
  • Update: For consistency I made all reference as the Express JS framework.
• I didn't change much in the translations section - just confirm it's correct
• I did not put in any other languages since there is only English version
• added translation tags so see if it would pass translations tests - is this correct? If not i can remove these.
• If we want to keep the CONTRIBUTING.md as it is now (like before I changed it) could write something like what .sh scripts do for the express contributing page. It won't allow liquid syntax or includes.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for expressjscom-preview ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	56e9832
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/expressjscom-preview/deploys/6732d4b0ddc9cc00084721a6
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1671--expressjscom-preview.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[ctcpip]

hmmm. when was this decided?

[carlosstenzel]

Has it been discussed anywhere?

[chrisdel101]

It wasn't, but was one of the main point of this PR (for me). It was been noted in various pull requests before that were closed, since the work was not approved first, and the person's work was wasted.
#1608 had noted it, but no one really said yeh or neh. Can remove this, but does not solve that issue and may continue to happen. (Also the getting started section says this as the reason "Don't skip straight to a pull request. It will be likely be rejected and closed. We DO NOT want anyone's time or hard work to go to waste. So please, follow the steps.")

Did we not want people to open issues first? If not, I can remove this language from throughout the doc as it appears a few times.

(This how the few main members have been operating for months in this repo too, so nothing would change)

[chrisdel101]

I did not remove this idea, but I've updated the language to be less assertive and more polite. Just in case it was the tone that was the issue and not the message itself.

Please note: We are no longer accepting unsolicited pull requests.

• All this means is that we ask that you submit an issue describing your task first so it can get approved. After this you can submit a pull request.

[wesleytodd]

It was been noted in various pull requests before that were closed, since the work was not approved first, and the person's work was wasted.

Can you link me to some examples? While we do like when folks open issues before doing large amounts of work on a PR, we should never be "closing since the work was not approved first". That is VERY opposed to the ideals of the TC and if folks are doing that we need to make sure we clear up the goals and approaches we want to take with new contributors.

Please note: We are no longer accepting unsolicited pull requests.

This language is very objectionable to me. Maybe we need to get the website team together on a TC meeting and have a coversation? It is nearly impossiable to keep up with all the conversations, but I am very concerned now that maybe the TC needs to jump into this topic before things go too far.

[chrisdel101]

I had written up a response but due to the amorphous state of this PR it didn't save.
I'm not sure if this language is even still in the document, but it's hard to tell until I can fix this PR state. I wrote GH support to see if it can be fixed (don't want to open another unless this one is detached and lost).
https://github.com/chrisdel101/expressjs.com/blob/contributing/CONTRIBUTING.md

Isn't this the workflow we use now? I had just thought it was so I added it, but I am not the most active member so I could be mistaken, i.e 1. Fill in issue, 2. Make PR.
I'll defer to the more senior members to answer if this is the case.

Re: the language - all content here is open to edits. If it's just language that can be changed, but I don't want to say incorrect things either. But I'll wait until this PR is open again before going further with edits.

[wesleytodd]

I am for sure not faulting you for writing it out, especially if that is your experience. And I would not ask for changes in here unless we were going to re-open the PR. My main point was that reading this experience it felt like there was a gap in how I (and based on conversations with others on the TC and project) feel things should be running. So as I was catching up on notifications I didn't want this to slip by unnoticed if we needed to address a situation that is counter to our governance and ideals.

There is alot on here, and as I have not been following the website updates closely I dont want to assume anything, but this is why I thought maybe we should all schedule time on the working call for the folks to get together and make sure we were all on the same page for how to run the project contributions.

[bjohansebas]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to add another page for contributions, maybe it would be better to add this content to the existing contributions page. Although, we should modify the script a bit that pulls in content from the contributions file in the express repo.

If that works for you, I can modify the script in this same PR.

[carlosstenzel]

please, add also for other languages

[chrisdel101]

Do we put it in even tho there is no translation?

[carlosstenzel]

we can add the link to EN

[chrisdel101]

But how? If the menu link is in Japanese how can I add an English link in there? Why would we want English links in the translations?
I wouldn't want this if I was looking at a translation. Is this what we are doing now? @bjohansebas

[bjohansebas]

we want is to maintain consistency across all languages. I know it's complicated, but we're trying. Adding the link and redirecting to the English page would help maintain this consistency, although we probably also want to add the content to its folder even if it isn't translated. However, this would be done last after all the feedback is received

[chrisdel101]

I added all the links to en for now.

I personally don't agree with adding untranslated pages into other language folders just because it's quite confusing on our end (and seems wrong), but I do see where you are coming from - adding only the links to /en takes users outside their langs, with only the back arrow to get back to it.

[chrisdel101]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to add another page for contributions, maybe it would be better to add this content to the existing contributions page. Although, we should modify the script a bit that pulls in content from the contributions file in the express repo.

If that works for you, I can modify the script in this same PR.

@bjohansebas You mean remove the page from the site? That's one of the main points or this PR, but I guess the content is more important.
And keeping the CONTRIBUTING.md is useful since it's a pretty universal page, but just to redirect. So I don't see the problem with having two pages since one just redirects, and the content is not repeated.
Otherwise it's just a markdown file in the repo, which is not terrible, but I thought it would be nice to have a page on the site.

Or you mean have the content in the repo file and pull that onto the site page? If this is what you mean, then yeah. But repo md does not support liquid so can't pull in front-matter is only downside.

I'll wait until we decide this before making the requested changes.

[bjohansebas]

@bjohansebas You mean remove the page from the site? That's one of the main points or this PR, but I guess the content is more important.
And keeping the CONTRIBUTING.md is useful since it's a pretty universal page, but just to...

I'll wait until we decide this before making the requested changes.

@chrisdel101 I mean merging the content from both the documentation and Express itself into the same file. That is, in https://github.com/expressjs/expressjs.com/blob/gh-pages/en/resources/contributing.md, we would have the following content:

---
layout: page
title: Contributing to Express
menu: resources
lang: en
redirect_from: "/resources/community.html"
---
// Begin content brought from https://github.com/expressjs/express/blob/master/Contributing.md
# Contributing to Express

Express and the other projects in the [expressjs organization on GitHub](https://github.com/expressjs) are projects of the [OpenJs Foundation](https://openjsf.org/).
These projects are governed under the general policies and guidelines of the Node.js Foundation along with the additional guidelines below. 
...
// End content brought from https://github.com/expressjs/express/blob/master/Contributing.md

// Start the content about contributing to the documentation.
----

[chrisdel101]

Ahh okay. I guess we can do that. I'll make that change.

RE: CONTRIBUTING.md I'm looking into a get-contributinng-docs.sh script. Can see if we like this workflow after it's working.

[bjohansebas]

Hi @chrisdel101, maybe it’s a good idea to clear the history

[chrisdel101]

Are u still getting updates even in draft?
Yeah I can start fresh PR when this is ready, assuming that’s what u meant.

[bjohansebas]

I didn't mean that, I think we should continue with this PR first and not open another one for the same purpose. I just saw that there are more than 100 commits

[chrisdel101]

Ahh okay. I usually rebase it at the end. So I’m not going to fix it until the it’s ready since it might be a rough unwind.
It’s due to a mistake I did it on a test branch that proliferated into main unexpectedly.

[chrisdel101]

This branch cannot be salvaged due to unknown problems, possibly due to rebase but should not be due to that. This was force closed when the branch was destroyed while trying to fix this.
All the history from before my commits is showing up and nothing will make it drop off.
I also tried fresh orphan, and the commit history is now showing correct, but it fails to merge due to unrelated histories.
Due to complexity and too many hours spent on this a fresh branch is going to be the only way forward.
Apologies all.
(Although I'll still try to salvage this if possible - the history looks to be fixed now but I cannot find any way to reopen the PR. Contacted GH support since the branch is connected but the Open button is greyed out)

[chrisdel101]

Okay guys, so after consulting with GH support, this PR is officially ruined. I made such a huge mess of the workflow that it cannot be salvaged. Apologies once again. I'm going to open a new one.
Def one of the biggest version control nightmares I've ever created. At least I didn't bring anyone else down with me.