search

byte-physics / igortest

Igor Pro Universal Testing Framework
https://docs.byte-physics.de/igor-unit-testing-framework/
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
7 stars 2 forks source link

Rewrite of Readme.md #382

Closed MichaelHuth closed 1 year ago

MichaelHuth commented 1 year ago

This is the rewrite of the Readme.

t-b commented 1 year ago

Upps. I thouht I was assigned. Sorry for that. I've added some minor fixes and some more links.

t-b commented 1 year ago

And thanks of course for the PR!

Garados007 commented 1 year ago

Do you really want to close this PR?

t-b commented 1 year ago

Nope, of course not. I'll make myself a coffee ;)

Garados007 commented 1 year ago

I can also create a fix if its okay. Just give me one thumb up. ;)

t-b commented 1 year ago

It is also common to add the following sections:

* **License**. In this case we can say that most parts are BSD-3. @t-b can extend this section in his PR to reference the license file.

Yes.

* **Versioning**. Are we using [Semantic Versioning](http://semver.org/)? I think so.

Yes.

* **Useful Links**. We can list some good links that can help the user to use IUTF or Igor Pro.

No, please not. This is too vague of a topic.

t-b commented 1 year ago

@MichaelHuth Can we drop the WARN from the example? Thanks.

Garados007 commented 1 year ago

I have added my ideas. Please take a look.

MichaelHuth commented 1 year ago

Looks good to me.

Just out of curiosity, if we use semantic versioning shouldn't we be at 1.9 ? Does the single digit leading zero for the minor version number has some intention?

Garados007 commented 1 year ago

if we use semantic versioning shouldn't we be at 1.9 ?

Yes there are some issues with the current versioning system that we use. The only exceptions that we have right now:

So, you are right we are not really following the rules of Semantic versioning as we break with rule 2.

I don't know. Maybe we should describe our versioning system.

t-b commented 1 year ago

How about we just say that we want to use semantic versioning in the future and link to an issue?

I did that just now. I also revised the example a bit. And added Max and me as co authors to the commit.

t-b commented 1 year ago

Please approve if you think this is good. Otherwise we iterate more.

t-b commented 1 year ago

@MichaelHuth As you can't approve, it is your PR, does it look good now?