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

Minor formatting/markup tweaks #301

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

Zearin
Copy link

@Zearin Zearin commented Apr 16, 2016

(I believe this is a patch-level change. :P)

(I believe this is a patch-level change. :P)
@@ -327,7 +330,7 @@ The Semantic Versioning specification is authored by [Tom
Preston-Werner](http://tom.preston-werner.com), inventor of Gravatars and
cofounder of GitHub.

If you'd like to leave feedback, please [open an issue on
If you'd like to leave feedback, please [open an Issue on

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is "Issue" being capitalized?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It shouldn't be.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was considering “Issues” a proper noun (as in “GitHub Issues”). Will change back to lowercase.

@Zearin
Copy link
Author

Zearin commented Apr 26, 2016

De-capitalized “issue”. :)

@Zearin
Copy link
Author

Zearin commented May 27, 2016

ping

@@ -4,15 +4,15 @@ Semantic Versioning 2.0.0
Summary
-------

Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:
Given a version number `MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH`, increment the:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The quotes are not needed around MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH and seem to be confusing. The all-caps seems to be sufficient.


1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
1. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible
1. `MAJOR` version when you make incompatible API changes,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why isn't all-caps sufficient?

Copy link
Contributor

@jwdonahue jwdonahue left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would deny these changes. They degrade the clarity of the document.

@alexandrtovmach
Copy link
Member

Closing & re-opening to trigger CI

@alexandrtovmach alexandrtovmach added layout Document structure or markdown styles and removed proposal labels Jun 19, 2020
@ljharb
Copy link
Contributor

ljharb commented Jun 19, 2020

I agree that this doesn't add clarity.

@alexandrtovmach
Copy link
Member

I'm actually okay with wrapping with backticks examples of versions like v1.2.3 etc, but all other changes haven't sense for me.

qub1750ul pushed a commit to qub1750ul/versioning that referenced this pull request Jul 10, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
layout Document structure or markdown styles
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants