René's URL Explorer Experiment

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DiscussionForumPosting","headline":"Unclear why fun.py (and others?) shouldn't have a module docstring","articleBody":"While working on #1725 I noticed the `git.index.fun` module has this comment at the top:\r\n\r\nhttps://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/blob/d5fc6e5337011d54fd2f3ff5aac71dbb38e43ee6/git/index/fun.py#L1-L2\r\n\r\nActually, that exact comment is due to my revision in that PR, but it's revised from:\r\n\r\nhttps://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/blob/add46d9daa7664628ba3512297a2401981694c98/git/index/fun.py#L1-L3\r\n\r\nThis was introduced in 9ccd777, at which time an existing module docstring was converted to a comment instead. Various other module docstrings were also converted to comments. But some modules today do have docstrings. Running `make -C doc html` seems to work fine; I ran it a number of times on Ubuntu and Windows while working on that PR and since.\r\n\r\nI didn't want to assume it was okay to turn that back into a docstring. But either it (and any other top of module comments) should be turned into docstrings, *or* the reason they should not be should be made clearer (and any module docstrings causing problems fixed or converted back to comments).","author":{"url":"https://github.com/EliahKagan","@type":"Person","name":"EliahKagan"},"datePublished":"2023-11-04T22:19:43.000Z","interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":"https://schema.org/CommentAction","userInteractionCount":2},"url":"https://github.com/1733/GitPython/issues/1733"}