This repository has no code of conduct, and there is no organisation-level file
standing in for one:
gh api repos/Flowfin/site/community/profile --jq '{code_of_conduct:.files.code_of_conduct}'
{"code_of_conduct":null}
gh api repos/Flowfin/.github/contents --jq '[.[].name]'
[".github","FUNDING.yml","SECURITY.md","profile"]
The repository whose gate this one is measured against has one, so this is a
parity row as well as a gap:
gh api repos/Flowfin/jellyfin-plugin-sso/community/profile --jq '.files.code_of_conduct.name'
Contributor Covenant
What its absence costs is not a missing badge on a profile page. The templates in
#17 invite reports from people who have no other relationship with this project,
and the tracker they land on is public. With nothing written down, whether a
comment is acceptable is decided one comment at a time by whoever happens to
answer, and the first occasion that matters is the worst occasion to be writing
the rule.
The text is the one the rest of this organisation already uses, so somebody
moving between these repositories meets one standard rather than several. What
has to be adapted is the part every adopted text leaves blank, which is where a
report goes. It goes to the private route that #59 writes down and #57 opens,
not to the public tracker, because a report about somebody's conduct posted in
public is a second incident.
Done when
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md exists at the repository root, the first command above
reports a code of conduct rather than null, the text matches the one the other
repositories in this organisation carry, and the reporting route named in it is
the private one rather than an address nothing reads.
This repository has no code of conduct, and there is no organisation-level file
standing in for one:
The repository whose gate this one is measured against has one, so this is a
parity row as well as a gap:
What its absence costs is not a missing badge on a profile page. The templates in
#17 invite reports from people who have no other relationship with this project,
and the tracker they land on is public. With nothing written down, whether a
comment is acceptable is decided one comment at a time by whoever happens to
answer, and the first occasion that matters is the worst occasion to be writing
the rule.
The text is the one the rest of this organisation already uses, so somebody
moving between these repositories meets one standard rather than several. What
has to be adapted is the part every adopted text leaves blank, which is where a
report goes. It goes to the private route that #59 writes down and #57 opens,
not to the public tracker, because a report about somebody's conduct posted in
public is a second incident.
Done when
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.mdexists at the repository root, the first command abovereports a code of conduct rather than
null, the text matches the one the otherrepositories in this organisation carry, and the reporting route named in it is
the private one rather than an address nothing reads.