Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Correct typos and formatting in README #463

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 18, 2024
Merged

Correct typos and formatting in README #463

merged 3 commits into from
Apr 18, 2024

Conversation

RayStick
Copy link
Member

@RayStick RayStick commented Jan 2, 2024

I was reading the README file and noticed a typo, so I corrected it. Then also made a few minor formatting improvements. I did them each as separate commits if we only want to accept some of them.

Proposed Changes

  1. I corrected a spelling mistake (Subsistems -> Subsystems)
  2. The line that starts "We want to offer as much support as possible ..." was on the same line as the GE bullet point but it looked like it was meant to be on a separate line
  3. Some suggested re-wording to the 'Tested OSs' section - there were no mistakes here though, so just improvements.

Change Type

  • bugfix (+0.0.1)
  • minor (+0.1.0)
  • major (+1.0.0)
  • refactoring (no version update)
  • test (no version update)
  • infrastructure (no version update)
  • documentation (no version update). I assume this is the right one to tick as README is essentially documentation? Or is this label just for files in /docs?
  • other

Checklist before review

  • I added everything I wanted to add to this PR.
  • [Code or tests only] I wrote/updated the necessary docstrings. N/A
  • [Code or tests only] I ran and passed tests locally. N/A
  • [Documentation only] I built the docs locally. N/A as this is just for /docs ?
  • My contribution is harmonious with the rest of the code: I'm not introducing repetitions.
  • My code respects the adopted style, especially linting conventions. N/A
  • The title of this PR is explanatory on its own, enough to be understood as part of a changelog.
  • I added or indicated the right labels.
  • I added information regarding the timeline of completion for this PR. N/A
  • Please, comment on my PR while it's a draft and give me feedback on the development!

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 2, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (91ddcef) 91.18% compared to head (0f6bd72) 91.18%.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #463   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.18%   91.18%           
=======================================
  Files           8        8           
  Lines        1010     1010           
=======================================
  Hits          921      921           
  Misses         89       89           

@RayStick RayStick added the Documentation This issue or PR is about the documentation label Jan 2, 2024
@RayStick RayStick self-assigned this Jan 2, 2024
@RayStick RayStick changed the title Proof read Correct typos and formatting in README Jan 2, 2024
@RayStick RayStick marked this pull request as ready for review January 2, 2024 09:39
@RayStick RayStick requested a review from smoia January 2, 2024 09:39
@RayStick
Copy link
Member Author

RayStick commented Jan 2, 2024

@smoia I requested you as reviewer (should be a quick review) but if you prefer - please request someone else that would be good to review it and then remove yourself

@smoia smoia added the Good first issue Good for newcomers label Jan 18, 2024
@rgbayrak rgbayrak merged commit d796fe1 into master Apr 18, 2024
9 checks passed
@RayStick RayStick deleted the proof-read branch October 18, 2024 09:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Documentation This issue or PR is about the documentation Good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
Status: Done
Status: PR review in progress
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants