I fixed a spelling typo: https://github.com/cordova/apache-blog-posts/pull/31
It's definitely much more readable. And thanks to the people who report that they read it. That was very valuable feedback :) On 2/3/15, 12:54 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <[email protected]> wrote: >Did some pruning: https://github.com/cordova/apache-blog-posts/pull/30 > >On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Michal Mocny <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Its nice when people have a place to look up what changed when they >>notice >> a new version is out. (Also, when we do a tools release and updated >>pinned >> platforms, we can point back to these posts). Additionally, some of our >> users have come to this list asking for a blog post just recently, so >>its >> not completely unread.. >> >> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I don't really like how this is part of the release process at all, >>and >> the >> > only reason that I'm doing it is because we have to for some reason. >>I >> > don't really think any of our users actually read this, and I really >>just >> > want to see this done so that it can't be used as an excuse to not >>ship >> > 4.0.x. I think that the blog posts should be completely decoupled >>from >> the >> > release process, since my desire to see software released is >>completely >> > different from my desire to further condense release notes that I >>don't >> > think our users read. >> > On Mon Feb 02 2015 at 2:36:21 PM Josh Soref <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > I sent a basic pull request. >> > > >> > > Offhand, that list should probably be shortened a bit more. >> > > >> > > Note that if something didn't change between the current release and >> > > 3.7.0, readers of the release announcement don't care. I can't >>figure >> out >> > > if some gradle changes were superceeded by others, or relate to >> different >> > > gradle env targets, if they were superceeded, the ones that don't >>apply >> > as >> > > of 3.7.0 should of course be dropped. >> > > >> > > Offhand, CB-4914 could probably be dropped; CB-8204 probably should >>be >> > > dropped; one instance of CB-8143 should probably be dropped (or >>not, if >> > > they're really different things/for different targets). CB-7410 >>should >> > > probably be dropped too. >> > > >> > > It's also helpful to group things by area. >> > > >> > > >> > >>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
