[alexrage]

A more consistent documentation experience. A lot of code examples import various modules, but those modules have no documentation. For example: Docs > Client > Apollo Link mentions `graphql-tools` and schema stitching, with a link to read more. Clicking that link takes you to a page that says it's deprecated, and then links to a blog post about why.

Another example: Is `apollo-link-state` deprecated? The docs for `apollo-link-state` don't mention that, but the Local state management page in Apollo Client sure says it is.

[WorldMaker]

Similar to the deprecation issue, a number of Links still say "under active development" or similar pre-release "warnings" in their GitHub READMEs but that isn't reflected in the documentation site, making it tough to figure out what is considered stable and what isn't without jumping back and forth between GitHub and the documentation site, and there's still questions of whether or not perhaps the README warnings are stale. It would also maybe be great to have something of a roadmap of when those links might be considered "production ready" especially if the documentation site is already recommending them as project solutions.

The example to mind is last time I was trying to do something (a few months back) `apollo-link-rest` was highly recommended in the documentation as a potential solution, but yet visiting the GitHub for it seemed to be saying the exact opposite that it wasn't ready yet and was filled with massive API shifts and bugs/issues to iron out before "production ready".

[alexrage]

Indeed. It boils down to having no trust in the documentation because of the conflicting messages.