Am Samstag, den 12.02.2011, 14:19 +0100 schrieb Enrico Tröger: > True. > My suggestion was based on your statement, the README content should > match the released plugin version. To avoid confusion: I was talking about the informations contained in the README file, not the content. I don't want any plugin developer to fit his README file 1:1 with the released file. I just was suggesting to be consistent with the behavior the actual released plugin behaves. And this is just a suggestion, no requirement. It's still up to the plugin developer how he maintains his README. :)
> Maybe this isn't necessary at all. I don't see READMEs as > the documentation of a plugin and so the README should be as up to date > as necessary and should not match a months old release state. > Just my 2cents. Of course. Consistency with the described behavior and the up-to-dateness don't exclude each other. :) Regards, Dominic -- Dominic Hopf <dma...@googlemail.com> http://dominichopf.de/ Key Fingerprint: A7DF C4FC 07AE 4DDC 5CA0 BD93 AAB0 6019 CA7D 868D
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
