Add the "Redo" package

[ISSOtm]

• I'm the package's author and/or maintainer.
• I have have read the docs.
• I have tagged a release with a semver version number.
• My package repo has a description and a README describing what it's for and how to use it.
• My package doesn't add context menu entries. *
• My package doesn't add key bindings. **
• Any commands are available via the command palette. (It's a build system.)
• If my package is a syntax it doesn't also add a color scheme. ***
• If my package is a syntax it is named after the language it supports (without suffixes like "syntax" or "highlighting").
• I use .gitattributes to exclude files from the package: images, test files, sublime-project/workspace.

My package adds support for the Redo build system, adding a build system and syntax definition.

There are no packages like it in Package Control.

For bonus points, also considered how the review guidelines apply to this package:
https://github.com/wbond/package_control_channel/wiki#reviewing-a-package-addition

[packagecontrol-bot]

Automated testing result: SUCCESS

Repo link: Redo

Packages added:
  - Redo

Processing package "Redo"
  - All checks passed

[braver]

Please use a consistent suffix to your scopes, even in the hidden syntax. e.g. redo_ouput.

I think there might be a better way to create your syntax, by simply extending the default bash syntax. Try this:

%YAML 1.2
# https://www.sublimetext.com/docs/syntax.html
---
name: Redo
scope: source.redo
version: 2
extends: Packages/ShellScript/Bash.sublime-syntax

file_extensions:
  - do

This might mean you'd have to bump your requirement to something more recent though, which should not be a problem anyway. I would suggest going with 4142 as a minimum (that's already more than a year old).

[braver]

Please respond to the feedback to continue this PR.

[ISSOtm]

Please use a consistent suffix to your scopes, even in the hidden syntax. e.g. redo_ouput.

I've done it that way for consistency with other syntaxes, like the built-in Makefile, or e.g. Rust Enhanced. Not sure which way should be privileged.

I think there might be a better way to create your syntax, by simply extending the default bash syntax. Try this:

[...]

This might mean you'd have to bump your requirement to something more recent though, which should not be a problem anyway. I would suggest going with 4142 as a minimum (that's already more than a year old).

Okay, fair enough. I can't perform the modification right now, but I will. Documentation indicates that the requirement is 4075, FWIW.