Improvements to registering an extension (#2)

[flip111]

Q	A
Doc fix?	yes
New docs?	no
Applies to	all
Fixed tickets	#9644 (symfony) and #3231 (symfony-docs)

1. The original text is good but the topic of that paragraph is not "extension conventions" but "registering an extension" (i.e. if you follow these conventions then register goes like so ..)
2. Cleaned up different terminology "Conventions" v "Standards" -> just conventions now
3. Move this part to a more logical place. First create then register, then modify for additional needs.

---

I don't know why a comment about Symfony 2.1 (versionadded:: 2.1) is removed in the new documentation (master). I copied from there.

[wouterj]

Manually Registering an Extension Class

[flip111]

It Looks Pretty, CamelCase, But No We Don't Write English Like This

[wouterj]

Yes we write english like that and call it Title Case... http://symfony.com/doc/current/contributing/documentation/standards.html#language-standards

[xabbuh]

Actually we do (see http://symfony.com/doc/current/contributing/documentation/standards.html#language-standards).

Sorry, was too late.

[flip111]

OK

[wouterj]

+1 this is indeed much better!

[xabbuh]

:method:`Symfony\\Component\\HttpKernel\\Bundle\\Bundle::build`

[flip111]

This is outside of the scope of this PR (see improvements points 1,2 and 3). Please submit a new PR for this.

[wouterj]

No it is not

[flip111]

I'm not maintaining this PR anymore because of repo collab going out of scope.

[wouterj]

Hi @flip111

I'm really sad you closing this pr... would be nice to get the changes in the docs.

From your comment, it looks like it was my fault? Could you please tell me what I did wrong? I and @xabbuh are reviewing almost all PRs, so it would be nice to learn how we can improve our reviewing comments.

Also, if you don't know how to fix the comments, don't heasitate (not sure if that's spelled correctly) asking us for help. We're always willing to help people contributing.

If yu really decide not to continue this, I'll create a new PR including your changes and a commit from me fixing the comments, so we can have this nice changes in the docs.

Thanks,
Wouter

[flip111]

You closed the original PR because of "as there is nothing wrong with the docs and I can't see a way how we can rewrite it"

Then later when I submit this PR I get plenty of comments from you and xabbuh of all these little things being WRONG. Some of which I didn't even write in the first place. Many of which are valid points such as too long lines and title CamelCase (but the reason was not stated and I didn't know about the rules).

So all in all it seems to jump on the first chance to analyse, critique and dismiss it.

Also taken the hassle for submitting documentation when not being routined. I don't feel like doing additional work to add in changes that were already in the documentation before this PR. And then having the chance of it not being merged anyway (as there was zero comment on the things I actually did want to improve).

But since you were so nice to ask why I closed it, I will reopen it and do a commit on the changes you suggested.

[wouterj]

Hi, thanks for reopening!

I'll at some more explainations the next time, maybe my reviews become a little bit too robot-isch :)

The reason why we comment on small wrong things is because it's a lot easier to fix small things in the PR itself than after the merge. I spend a half year fixing many small things of PRs that were already merged, I want to avoid that in the feature.

And btw, I closed the precious issue as I thought anything was good, but as I already said in this PR, these changes are indeed better.

[weaverryan]

Thanks for re-opening this @flip111 - the section header and re-ordering really does make a lot more sense. I appreciate it!

Cheers!