Extracted from #1255
After 1.0, the term DVC-file only refers to raw/initial data versioned with dvc add/import/import-url. however users seem to mostly refer to such files as "dvc file" or .dvc file or just [data].dvc. Since we have all these alternatives, let's remove the formal term DVC-file? Also since there's not dvc.yaml (pipelines file) which adds to the confusion.
We could also address the "import stage" check box from #608:
- Eliminate "import stage" term. Just use imported .dvc file or something like that
I suggest we always use the specific [data].dvc form in our docs.
See these changes as an example of what to do: https://github.com/iterative/dvc.org/pull/1370/commits/1008321bb58a6fc23514e12cfa6b97d0d41f27e6
UPDATE: Decided for .dvc file instead. See https://github.com/iterative/dvc.org/issues/1366#issuecomment-634975331 just below.
UPDATE: Similarly, we should stop using "stage file" in favor for .dvc file as well.
UPDATE: Do not include instances in DVC command output examples.
UPDATE: See https://github.com/iterative/dvc.org/issues/1366#issuecomment-643123274 for known progress
Agreed. I haven't seen the [data].dvc form though - looks too complicated. We can just use .dvc files - very explicit and clear.
@utkarshsingh99 I think this chore is a little too boring TBH, I don't want you to suffer with this any more! Can you just please remind us the list of files that have been done so far up to your 2nd PR (#1408)? Thanks again for the help, BTW! I'll take it from there.
If you want to upload the remaining changes you have to a new branch in your fork and open a draft PR so I can take it over that would also be OK, up to you.
Sure.