Update docs

[TheRealOwenRees]

Broken links in docs updated. Please check that they point to the desired places.

This is step 1. Step 2 will be updating the docs to reflect track specific adding of exercises, and commands to verify that all tests pass etc. This will be PR some time next week.

[github-actions]

Hello. Thanks for opening a PR on Exercism 🙂

We ask that all changes to Exercism are discussed on our Community Forum before being opened on GitHub. To enforce this, we automatically close all PRs that are submitted. That doesn't mean your PR is rejected but that we want the initial discussion about it to happen on our forum where a wide range of key contributors across the Exercism ecosystem can weigh in.

You can use this link to copy this into a new topic on the forum. If we decide the PR is appropriate, we'll reopen it and continue with it, so please don't delete your local branch.

If you're interested in learning more about this auto-responder, please read this blog post.

---

Note: If this PR has been pre-approved, please link back to this PR on the forum thread and a maintainer or staff member will reopen it.

[github-actions]

Hello 👋 Thanks for your PR.

This repo does not currently have dedicated maintainers. Our cross-track maintainers team will attempt to review and merge your PR, but it will likely take longer for your PR to be reviewed.

If you enjoy contributing to Exercism and have a track-record of doing so successfully, you might like to become an Exercism maintainer for this track.

Please feel free to ask any questions, or chat to us about anything to do with this PR or the reviewing process on the Exercism forum.

(cc @exercism/cross-track-maintainers)

[github-actions]

This is an unmaintained repository.

Cross-track maintainers - feel free to merge.

[IsaacG]

• Markdown files should have one sentence per line. Any line you change should adhere to this standard.
• Doc links should point to the website.
• Ideally links should use reference links

[IsaacG]

Suggested change

	Please read about how to [get involved in a track](https://github.com/exercism/docs/tree/main/building/tracks). Be sure to read the Exercism [Code of Conduct](https://exercism.io/code-of-conduct).
	Please read about how to [get involved in a track](https://exercism.org/docs/building/tracks).
	Be sure to read the Exercism [Code of Conduct](https://exercism.org/docs/using/legal/code-of-conduct).

[IsaacG]

Suggested change

	Fixes and improvements to existing exercises are welcome. Please note that this track's exercises must conform to the Exercism-wide standards described in the [documentation](https://github.com/exercism/docs/tree/main). If you're unsure about how to make a change, then go ahead and open a GitHub issue, and we'll discuss it.
	Fixes and improvements to existing exercises are welcome.
	Please note that this track's exercises must conform to the Exercism-wide standards described in the [documentation](https://exercism.org/docs/building).
	If you're unsure about how to make a change, please post on [the forum](https://forum.exercism.org/).

[IsaacG]

I'm not sure how open we are to contributions on unmaintained tracks :)

[BNAndras]

If there weren’t any contributions, nobody would get the rep to be considered a maintainer candidate. So we shouldn’t actively discourage contributions I think, but we don’t want to actively encourage them either. We’re not the track maintainers who would have a vision of what the track is and needs to be.

Therefore, I’m fine working within what we have now to add practice exercises and update the docs. That doesn’t require a lot of track-specific knowledge on our part. If someone wants to work on the track past that, they should ideally be a track maintainer.

[TheRealOwenRees]

I'm happy to keep adding lessons and updating the docs if you think it will increase the popularity of the track.

Because there is a lot of overlap between OCaml and Reason, I was thinking about copying some of the parts of the exercise generation and templating from the OCaml track and trying to make it work with the current test runner. This is some time away though if I were to attempt it .

[IsaacG]

I'm happy to keep adding lessons and updating the docs if you think it will increase the popularity of the track.

I have no idea how much the number of lessons/exercises influences peoples' interest in joining a track.

Would you like to be a track maintainer?

Because there is a lot of overlap between OCaml and Reason, I was thinking about copying some of the parts of the exercise generation and templating from the OCaml track and trying to make it work with the current test runner.

That sounds like a good idea to me.

[BNAndras]

Name recognition likely drives the student numbers. In a year, Batch Script gained 1.4k students with only 21 exercises. In nine months, Arturo gained 200 students with 71 exercises.

Most tracks have several dozen exercises implemented now because of the previous 12in23 and 48in23 challenges. Adding exercises won’t make a track stick out nowadays. However, they could help with student retention if the additional exercises cover topics or difficulty levels not adequately covered by existing exercises.

If you want to draw more students in, I’d suggest publicizing the track’s existence and finding an audience. Is there a ReasonML community forum or Discord server perhaps?

[TheRealOwenRees]

The ReasonML track is in a tricky place at the moment. It still uses Bucklescript which is now considered out of date. I don't think it is feasible to promote the track in its current form in places such as the ReasonML Discord server, due to it being outdated.

BuckleScript evolved on its own and became ReScript, whereas the defacto JS build tool for Reason is now Melange. This opens up a whole other conversation, one that has been previously had, about updating the track to use Melange. I know that using Melange comes with its own set of issues, because a reasonble Docker container size was never settled on.

In short, yes I would be intersted in being a maintainer and actively promoting this track. The longer version is that there needs to be a decision made about upgrading the track, using previous contributor's work, before it would be worth commiting me to such responsibilities. I need to look into the work previously done and see what can be done with the Docker image before proceeded.

Perhaps I can look into this over the coming week(s) and report back?

As a side note, I believe that previous discussions centered around renaming this track to Rescript are now invalid. ReasonML and Rescript are now two separate projects, one centered around the OCaml ecosystem, and the other just compiling to JS. There is a different syntax in both languages.

[IsaacG]

In short, yes I would be intersted in being a maintainer and actively promoting this track. The longer version is that there needs to be a decision made about upgrading the track, using previous contributor's work, before it would be worth commiting me to such responsibilities. I need to look into the work previously done and see what can be done with the Docker image before proceeded.

That would be up to the track maintainer(s) to decide on 😄

Perhaps I can look into this over the coming week(s) and report back?

Absolutely. If you're interested in getting involved as a maintainer, you should post on the forum about that.

[TheRealOwenRees]

In short, yes I would be intersted in being a maintainer and actively promoting this track. The longer version is that there needs to be a decision made about upgrading the track, using previous contributor's work, before it would be worth commiting me to such responsibilities. I need to look into the work previously done and see what can be done with the Docker image before proceeded.

That would be up to the track maintainer(s) to decide on 😄

Perhaps I can look into this over the coming week(s) and report back?

Absolutely. If you're interested in getting involved as a maintainer, you should post on the forum about that.

Understood!

If the Docker image size is not an issue then we can move forward. If not, part of me is wondering if the track should be archived and effort put into building a Rescript track.

[IsaacG]

I have no idea if the Docker image size is an issue or not. Jeremy would need to weigh in on that. I'll ping him on the forum thread.

[IsaacG]

Suggested change

	Pull requests should be focused on a single exercise, issue, or conceptually cohesive change. Please refer to Exercism's [pull request guidelines](https://github.com/exercism/docs/blob/main/building/github/contributors-pull-request-guide.md).
	Pull requests should be focused on a single exercise, issue, or conceptually cohesive change.
	Please refer to Exercism's [pull request guidelines](https://exercism.org/docs/building/github/contributors-pull-request-guide).

[IsaacG]

Suggested change

	- Run all the tests for the ReasonML exercises. There is a top level Makefile, run: `make`.
	- Run checks on the repo using [configlet](https://github.com/exercism/docs/tree/main/building/configlet). From the top level, run:
	- Run all the tests for the ReasonML exercises.
	There is a top level Makefile, run: `make`.
	- Run checks on the repo using [configlet](https://exercism.org/docs/building/configlet).
	From the top level, run:

[IsaacG]

Suggested change

	Please see the documentation about [adding new exercises](https://github.com/exercism/docs/tree/main/building/tracks/practice-exercises).
	Please see the documentation about [adding new practice exercises](https://exercism.org/docs/building/tracks/practice-exercises).

[TheRealOwenRees]

• Markdown files should have one sentence per line. Any line you change should adhere to this standard.

• Doc links should point to the website.

• Ideally links should use reference links

Thank you. This makes more sense. The original links pointed to parts of the GitHub repo, but pointing to the actual docs makes more sense.

I will fix this later today.