doc: add text showing that stackoverflow is not managed or moderated …

[JosephLeon]

Checklist

• documentation is changed or added
• commit message follows commit guidelines

[Trott]

Hi @JosephLeon! Thanks for the pull request! I'm not sure what the best way to document this is, but I don't think having a parenthetical Not managed by Node.js here and a bold unofficial a few lines below for the IRC channel is the way to do it. At a minimum, it should be consistent.

[Trott]

@nodejs/documentation

[Trott]

Maybe the thing to do is to move this to the bullet list below (with the IRC channel) and use unofficial like we do there?

[JosephLeon]

Hey @Trott! I moved stack overflow to the unofficial section. I question though if it would be better to remove:

If you didn't find an answer in one of the venues above, you can:

With some heading saying this is the unofficial section and then listing IRC and StackOverflow. My reason for this is there may be more unofficial items to add in the future. Each item would need to be worded to match the above header which doesn't explain the section's content and sets a weird context to follow.

If you agree I can reword that section with some sort of unofficial header and then list IRC and StackOverflow beneath it.

Ex:

If you didn't find an answer in one of the venues above, you can search these unofficial venues:

Then we can remove the bolded unofficial from each item.

[Trott]

Looks good to me as is. I think it would be a little better if StackOverflow were listed first and IRC second. Ideally people would look their before posting in the IRC channel.

[JosephLeon]

Moved StackOverflow to be the first item.

[LEQADA]

Sounds weird. Like there are official question, but these ones are unofficial.
Maybe let's move unofficial to the end? Like

• View questions tagged 'node.js' on StackOverflow (unofficial)

Or

• View questions tagged 'node.js' on StackOverflow (not supported by Node.js maintainers)

[LEQADA]

@JosephLeon @Trott wdty?

[JosephLeon]

Yes, I agree. Maybe we should reword the heading so we don't have to find ways to embed unofficial in the items. I think the main idea we are trying to convey is that these resources aren't moderated by node.js maintainers.

If you didn't find an answer in one of the official resources above, you can search these unofficial resources which aren't supported by node.js maintainers:

I can always slap unofficial at the end of the StackOverflow line too. I'm open to ideas.

[LEQADA]

IMO your suggestion is better than the current version. Let's see what @Trott thinks though.

[Trott]

Sounds good to me.

[Trott]

(Minor nit: node.js -> Node.js. Alternatively, you could stop after unofficial resources and leave the which aren't supported by Node.js maintainers part off. Either way!)

[JosephLeon]

I made the changes @Trott asked for but I'm getting a git error today when I run git push origin 19412:

To github.com:JosephLeon/node.git ! [rejected] 19412 -> 19412 (non-fast-forward) error: failed to push some refs to 'git@github.com:JosephLeon/node.git' hint: Updates were rejected because the tip of your current branch is behind hint: its remote counterpart. Integrate the remote changes (e.g. hint: 'git pull ...') before pushing again. hint: See the 'Note about fast-forwards' in 'git push --help' for details.

Before that I did run:

git fetch upstream
git rebase upstream/master

Which returned Current branch 19412 is up to date.

I was able to push the latest changes using git push origin 19412 -f. Just writing this here in case I should modify my workflow.

[styfle]

@JosephLeon The reason you needed the -f is because rebase is destructive and creates new commits on top of master. So when you push, your code doesn't match the server. I think force push is fine in this case because you're the only one working on your branch.

[benjamingr]

If you'd like, I answer quite a bit on StackOverflow - and I can talk to their moderation team if we need anything actionable from them.

In general, SO is pretty well moderated in my experience.

[davisjam]

LGTM

[Trott]

Additional metadata for whoever lands this:

Fixes: #19412

[JosephLeon]

@Trott Is there anything else I need to do on this?

[Trott]

Lite CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request-lite/287/

[Trott]

Fixed lint errors (line wrap at 80 chars in the README), rebased against upstream/master, squashed down to one commit, added metadata.

Lite CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request-lite/288/

[Trott]

Landed in 258bcb9

Welcome @JosephLeon and thanks for the contribution! 🎉

[JosephLeon]

@Trott So when we have a pull request out we should go to https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request-lite/288/ and make any fixes as noted there? My main reason for doing this particular issue was to get used to the commit pattern with node before taking on a coding issue. I'm reading https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/doc/guides/contributing/pull-requests.md#ci-testing and it seems like only certain people can do this portion. Do you have any additional feedback for me?

[Trott]

@JosephLeon Hopefully make test (or on Windows vcbuild test) locally will find any issues, but yes, if there are issues in the CI run, then someone needs to figure out what's going on. (Unfortunately, often the problem is unrelated to the change in the pull request.) Only people in the Collaborators group (currently over 100 people, though!) can start CI jobs.