Added add-library instructions

[jducoeur]

As discussed on Gitter.

[gzm0]

:-( Please reference the ticket I created just for you: #144

[gzm0]

Links saying "click here" are in general considered bad practice. Just make "add it to this list" a link and omit the next sentence entirely.

[gzm0]

Thanks for taking initiative on this!

[jducoeur]

No prob -- how's it look now? (Added another small clause: I'd forgotten the "Create a Pull Request" step.)

[gzm0]

Looking good. However, please squash the commits and prepend "Fix #144: " to the commit message.

[jducoeur]

Hmm. Is there any way to squash from the GitHub UI? In general, squashing is the part that I find most problematic -- AFAIK, there's no way to do it from either GitHub, nor the GitHub for Windows client that I do all my development in. (It really is a poorly-documented pain in the tuchus for those of us who aren't especially expert in git. I usually wind up scrapping my fork and replacing it, because that's easier than dealing with squashing.)

[gzm0]

I am not aware of any way to do so from any UI (except for magit, if you count it as UI). Unfortunately it is the only way to have a sane commit history IMO.

[sjrd]

Crash course to squashing:

$ git checkout branch-to-squash $ git rebase -i master # branch you're PRing against 

now replace pick by squash for all but the first commit to be squashed together. Save and exit
Tweak the commit message for the squashed commit.
Done.

[gzm0]

Yes... But this pretty much shatters my argument that it is easy to add stuff to the website :)

[gzm0]

So basically: It is super easy to make a PR, but then these two annoying guys with the 4 letter pseudos come and tell you to do weird git-foo :P

[sjrd]

Ah ... right. Damn 4-letter pseudos.

[jducoeur]

Yeah, 'fraid so. Ease of use with this process is directly proportional to one's git expertise, and it's currently easy to do development with only a modest amount of that. (This isn't the first time I've hit this issue.) Not to mention that rebase is somewhat controversial itself -- some of the git workflows I've read assert that it's bad practice, and are designing company policies to not use it...

[gzm0]

So far I have not seen any git workflow that gives reasonable history and does never rebase (or squash or similarly) anywhere. Of course, you should never rebase the public branches (as in master).

[jducoeur]

Gahhh -- managed to get my repo into a bad state. Giving up and starting again from scratch.