Establishing a recommended statndard for documenting dub packages

[Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:59:16 +0000, Karabuta wrote:

> Looking through documentations for the various packages available in the
> dub registry, I noticed that some packages have very good documentation
> whilst others are quite not there yet. ...
> 
> Therefore I suggest the community put-up some kind of documentation
> guideline to standardize the learning curve for packages/libraries. The
> IPFS project (ipfs.io) has something like this which makes some things
> easy to pick up and has motivated me to suggest this idea. What is your
> opinion on this?

Something like:

* Purpose / features

Sell me on your project in two sentences. Then talk about what other neat 
or handy things the project does.

* Installation

How to install it, if there are any non-obvious steps. For instance, if I 
have to install any external libraries, like GTK+ or libevent.

This should include an up-to-date dub.json dependencies line.

* Code examples

For the most common use cases, a human-readable description of what the 
use case is, followed by a code example implementing that use case. This 
should include import statements.

* Any important caveats to use

eg: in order to use this, you must compile with a specific version flag. 
Assumes Gregorian calendar transition happened on 15 October 1582, before 
which the Armenian calendar was in use.

* License