I’ve been experimenting with how I structure my repositories and wanted to get some feedback from others in the open source space. Traditionally, I’ve split things across platforms: long-form ideas → Medium/Substack code → GitHub deeper docs → scattered or minimal It worked, but it made it harder for someone new to actually understand and use the project without jumping around. What I’m trying instead I’ve started treating the repo itself as a complete system, not just a codebase. So everything lives together: README as a clear entry point /docs for structured breakdowns PDF versions of whitepapers/docs (for offline reading + stable snapshots) code + scripts to actually run things and commits acting as a readable timeline of changes (with AI summaries helping here) Goal Make it so a new contributor or user can: understand the idea go as deep as they want run the project and track how it evolves …without needing external links or context. Why I think this might matter A lot of repos are either: code-heavy but hard to approach or well-documented but disconnected from actual execution Trying to bridge that gap by keeping everything in one place. Where I’d love input Does including PDFs in a repo feel useful or unnecessary? Is this over-structuring things vs keeping it simple? How do you balance depth vs approachability in your own projects? Not trying to reinvent anything here—just trying to make projects easier to understand and contribute to. Would appreciate any thoughts or examples of repos that do this well.   submitted by   /u/New-Time-8269 [link]   [comments]