Adds Note to Good to know consistency

[manovotny]

• Changes all Note → Good to know
• Consistently puts the colon on the outside of bold text
• Documents singe and multi-line styles in contribution guide

Let me know if you're good with this, @delbaoliveira.

[delbaoliveira]

What do you think about eliminating Note: to remove the ambiguity? Then you can have a one line or listed Good to know:

[manovotny]

@delbaoliveira I am fine with using Good to know in all cases, but we'll need to fix up the codebase. I'll do that this weekend and on this same PR.

[manovotny]

@delbaoliveira I took a pass and updated the original description above. LMK what you think.

[delbaoliveira]

Looks good IMO!

[manovotny]

I'll need new approvals due to merging conflicts. 🫤

[styfle]

Personally, I prefer Note because its shorter. Also "Good" implies that the note is good but sometimes its more like a Caveat which is closer to bad than good.

[delbaoliveira]

@styfle for caveats, we previously had warning, and sometimes caveats. But if phrased incorrectly, it can come across as a negative or a limitation of the feature. Good to know felt more neutral, like "here are the things that are helpful to know if you're using this feature", even if it is not immediately relevant to the reader, but may be in the future.

I was also reluctant people might start littering the docs with warnings and notes.

[mayank1513]

Personally, I prefer Note because its shorter. Also "Good" implies that the note is good but sometimes its more like a Caveat which is closer to bad than good.

True! Note seems much better.