Sahilll94/Travel-Book

[DOCS] Incorrect git clone Command in README.md

Open

#32 opened on Aug 4, 2025

View on GitHub
 (2 comments) (0 reactions) (1 assignee)JavaScript (46 forks)auto 404
GSSoC'25Level 2documentationenhancementgood first issue

Repository metrics

Stars
 (9 stars)
PR merge metrics
 (PR metrics pending)

Description

Documentation Type

README file

Current Issue

The current git clone command mentioned in the README.md assumes users are cloning the original repository directly, rather than following the standard fork-and-clone workflow.

This can confuse new contributors who have forked the repo to their own GitHub account, as the link will not match what is written.

Proposed Improvement

Update the Clone section in the README.md to reflect the correct contributor workflow:

Affected Sections

README.md - installation section

Target Audience

All audiences

Additional Context

No response

Implementation

  • I can write the documentation changes myself
  • I can provide review and feedback
  • I prefer to let others handle the implementation

Confirmation

  • I have checked that this improvement isn't already covered elsewhere
  • I have searched for existing documentation issues before creating this one

Contributor guide

Research direction
Fork the repository, clone your fork, edit README.md to update the clone command to use your fork's URL, then create a pull request.
Tech stack
javascript
Domain
documentation
Issue type
Documentation
DifficultyEstimated implementation difficulty for a new contributor, from 1 for very small changes to 5 for expert-level work.
1
Estimated timeA rough time range for an experienced contributor to investigate, implement, test, and prepare a pull request.
Under 1 hour
Activity statusHow available the issue appears right now: fresh, active, stale, blocked, or waiting on maintainer input.
Active
ClarityHow clearly the issue explains the expected change, acceptance criteria, and next step.
Clear
Prerequisites
GitGitHub fork workflow
Newbie friendlinessA 1-100 score estimating how approachable this issue is for first-time contributors.
90