Opened 4 weeks ago
Closed 2 weeks ago
#8367 closed enhancement (fixed)
Introduce (more) README.md / AGENTS.md documentation to the repository.
| Reported by: | georgestephanis | Owned by: | obenland |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | General | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description
Right now, the wordpress.org meta repository is a bit of a black box for anyone trying to build on top of it — or orient themselves for the first time. We've got a lot of moving parts (endpoints, directories, forums, Rosetta localized portals, and shared packages) but very little high-level guidance mapping out how these systems tie together.
To make it easier for developers (and AI coding assistants) to propose enhancements without accidentally breaking things, I'd love to see a set of repository-relative markdown guides directly in the codebase.
Why this could help:
- Faster developer velocity: New contributors don't have to guess where plugins or configs live or how to seed a local Docker setup.
- Safer enhancements: Clear guidelines on dynamically deployed files (like the untracked wp-init-ondemand.php) prevent developers and agents from writing broken imports.
- Portability: All links inside the documentation use repository-relative paths, meaning they render perfectly right on GitHub or in any standard viewer.
Change History (10)
This ticket was mentioned in Slack in #meta by georgestephanis. View the logs.
4 weeks ago
@obenland commented on PR #716:
3 weeks ago
#3
Thanks @georgestephanis! I pushed a few changes and clarifications on things that I noticed.
I'm in favor of having an AGENTS.md (and claude equivalent), so I'm glad that's part of the PR. The details I'm a bit more skeptical of, like all three items in the "Architectural Patterns & Conventions" section. Why the focus on these three, which seem pretty specific and not really reflecting patterns? "Deep-Dive Integrations & Internals", is that something agents _need_ to know about in every session? Things of that nature.
For the READMEs: I think the ones in the repo root and in .github/ are useful and worth iterating on and giving them more meat.
The three subdirectory READMEs (api.wordpress.org, common, wordpress.org) are where I'm less sure. A lot of the content restates what the directory names already tell you ("photo-directory powers the photos registry") and I worry that they'll just get outdated quickly since they mostly just recount the directories. Maybe we could just drop those. Curious what you think?
@georgestephanis commented on PR #716:
3 weeks ago
#4
I'm personally in favor of the subdirectory readmes, as I've found when navigating the repository it can be nice to have that context loading up automagically as you navigate -- like when clicking around in https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/tree/trunk/packages for example (which is the first repo that kinda got me on the pattern of it).
@obenland commented on PR #716:
3 weeks ago
#5
I'd agree if they'd provide context and non-obvious information, like in your example, but at the moment they're mostly just listing files and directories.
@georgestephanis commented on PR #716:
3 weeks ago
#6
My big want is to get something in. If you'd rather do a thinner addition, I'm fine dropping stuff -- you have a lot more experience than I do in this repo.
@obenland commented on PR #716:
3 weeks ago
#7
Sounds good! Let's drop the readme's in api.wordpress.org, common, and wordpress.org for now and get the rest in as a first pass
@obenland commented on PR #716:
2 weeks ago
#8
Pushed ade2bf60c: dropped the READMEs in api.wordpress.org, common, and wordpress.org as discussed, and updated the root README's workspace map to remove the now-dead links. This should be good to go as a first pass now.
![(please configure the [header_logo] section in trac.ini)](/chrome/site/your_project_logo.png)
Files in the PR: