Try to apply some rigor to the list

[dead-claudia]

When we do reapply for addition to the Awesome list of Awesome lists, we need to explain to Sindre Sorhus why we intentionally deviated from their standard link format, - [Link name](URL), with the "Snippets" section specifically: the snippets listed generally lack meaningful titles, but are still often awesome in spite of that. They still carry the description, but I've altered the format to adhere to the general Awesome list link format in spirit. If he rejects that, I'll reach out to him personally on his reasoning in order to see how he feels they should be represented. (I'm hoping I don't have to track through git blame and other hoops to figure out who came up with each of those Flems snippets.)

I'm open for discussion on various aspects, and this is of course a draft PR, because there are other things that obviously need addressed first:

• I've got `<%= email %>` in the proposed code of conduct as a placeholder, but this needs to be replaced with an appropriate email or other contact point.
• Pending Sindre's acceptance of this deviation, I need to figure out if I (or someone else) can teach awesome_bot our custom rule set for the "Snippets" section (where link names are the link description, not simply project titles). This would most likely result in another issue filed against this repo once this PR is merged, and it may require a small fork.
  • You do have this currently in your Travis script, but it obviously won't validate a large number of the entries here currently, and not just in the snippets. I'm thinking for now, you could probably afford to drop the check and file a tracking issue to re-add it later.

[orbitbot]

Thanks for the initiative!

Sorry for the extreme delay, was busy at work when the issue was originally filed and other RL things got in the way as well.

To me this all looks reasonable, the only thing I didn't immediately catch was the part about git blame- It's fairly easy to get a list of contributors using git, but I guess the point would be to keep the line modification as the individual who contributed. It's a bit unfortunate that these would get buried a bit with the reformatting, but don't know if that's all that important off the top of my head. Other than someone perhaps being a bit offended? But in that case it's probably on me, in that I haven't been particularly strict on keeping up with the templates and semantics.

[dead-claudia]

@orbitbot

To me this all looks reasonable, the only thing I didn't immediately catch was the part about git blame- It's fairly easy to get a list of contributors using git, but I guess the point would be to keep the line modification as the individual who contributed.

It wouldn't just be tracking down the one who modified it, but they themselves may not have been the original author. That's why I was hoping I wouldn't have to go down that rabbit hole.

It's a bit unfortunate that these would get buried a bit with the reformatting, but don't know if that's all that important off the top of my head. Other than someone perhaps being a bit offended? But in that case it's probably on me, in that I haven't been particularly strict on keeping up with the templates and semantics.

Most of that first paragraph is just a reminder for later, so neither of us forget.

The template is pretty simple, to be honest, and merely having it there is mostly sufficient. I could always just parse the Markdown and write a GH bot that would verify that for you, so you don't need to look too closely yourself. (It's not that hard - just iterating bullet points and being aware of a particular section header.)