Flattened readme

[danjoa]

No description provided.

[mnkiefer]

Hi Daniel, looks great! 👍 I like that you now have the calesi alternative if you want to skip the step-by-step and jump right in.

One thing though, I believe we still need the header ##About this project to ensure OSS compliance.

@sjvans: Could you please comment on the structure that was requested for the README which you also adhered to in @cap-js/audit-logging?

[sjvans]

Hi Daniel, looks great! 👍 I like that you now have the calesi alternative if you want to skip the step-by-step and jump right in.

One thing though, I believe we still need the header ##About this project to ensure OSS compliance.

@sjvans: Could you please comment on the structure that was requested for the README which you also adhered to in @cap-js/audit-logging?

The README.md file should be broken down into the following sections.
- Mandatory Sections
  - Description
  - Requirements
  - Contributing
  - Code of Conduct
  - Licensing
- Optional Sections
  - Download & Installation
  - Configuration
  - Limitations
  - Known Issues
  - How to Obtain Support
  - To-Do (Upcoming changes)

i'll send you some internal links via chat ;)

[sjvans]

i'm afraid we'll need to retain .reuse and LICENSES

[mnkiefer]

Hi Daniel, looks great! 👍 I like that you now have the calesi alternative if you want to skip the step-by-step and jump right in.
One thing though, I believe we still need the header ##About this project to ensure OSS compliance.
@sjvans: Could you please comment on the structure that was requested for the README which you also adhered to in @cap-js/audit-logging?

The README.md file should be broken down into the following sections.
- Mandatory Sections
  - Description
  - Requirements
  - Contributing
  - Code of Conduct
  - Licensing
- Optional Sections
  - Download & Installation
  - Configuration
  - Limitations
  - Known Issues
  - How to Obtain Support
  - To-Do (Upcoming changes)

i'll send you some internal links via chat ;)

@sjvans: Thanks for the links! 👍 According to the repo linting tool, we should still have a section called Requirements, right?

Warning

[rl-readme_file-2] README is incomplete. Please check the following sections: Requirements
Warning

[sjvans]

@sjvans: Thanks for the links! 👍 According to the repo linting tool, we should still have a section called Requirements, right?

Warning [rl-readme_file-2] README is incomplete. Please check the following sections: Requirements Warning

not a must. however, the tool only lints main, so you'll need to merge this first to see if there are new violations.

[danjoa]

Let's discuss that in our next sync.
Priority is conciseness and comprehensibility, not formalism

[nkaputnik]

We should also add a disclaimer on the top that this is Early Adopters and production use is on your own risk.
Nils Hirsekorn already raised a performance isse and "expects" a resolution. Clearly, have diverging expectations from an open source project...

[mnkiefer]

We should also add a disclaimer on the top that this is Early Adopters and production use is on your own risk. Nils Hirsekorn already raised a performance isse and "expects" a resolution. Clearly, have diverging expectations from an open source project...

We've addressed this here 👍

[sjvans]

please see comments