Updates for change log2021.1 - #12463
Conversation
Modify CLDR update version.
|
Passing this PR as ready.
This seems grammatically incorrect (singular vs. plural...) to me but I would prefer to have the view of a native English speaker before modifying it. Thanks. |
seanbudd
left a comment
seanbudd
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that it would be good to rephrase this. I've added my suggestion to break up the long sentence and reduce ambiguity. Going to await further discussion from others.
|
Cyrille Bougot wrote:
Please double check the following sentence:
Add-ons will need to be re-tested and authors will need to provide a new version certifying its compatibility with this release.
Add-ons will need to be re-tested and authors will need to provide new
versions certifying their compatibility with this release.
Do note, that the manifest language already existed in two places in
changes (lines 29 and 89).
|
|
Reef Turner wrote:
This is tricky, as a message to add-on authors this isn't detailed enough. It could say consult the "changes for developers" section and check if your addon
relies on any of the changed / moved / removed code. However, for regular users that is way too technical for a release blurb / highlight.
Perhaps we could just add "consult the changes for developers".
Is add-on authors not knowing what to do when the API breaks, actually a
problem that exists?
Not to be contentious, this just seems unnecessarily hand-holdy.
I don't object to the "warning", the bolding, whatever, it just never
occurred to me that someone writing code intimately linked to a piece of
software, wouldn't already know where to look when the API they use
breaks.
|
|
@XLTechie @feerrenrut, my intention (and I think @CyrilleB79's) is to make the message more clear to end-users, rather than developers, that add-ons are breaking if you update. And that you need to wait for devs to fix them and release a new version. |
|
The change log is also intended for addon developers. Some of which may not closely follow the development of NVDA. I don't think it is unreasonable to provide extra guidance, especially if low cost. In other channels, this guidance seems necessary. This process is relatively new (this is only the second API compatibility change) and we don't have anything explicitly pointing authors to the change log. In other software, especially software libraries, update guides are common. |
|
@XLTechie wrote:
Talking about manifest in the change log is not a problem for the already two mentions:
As explained in my comment in the code, putting the word "manifest" in the blurb seems to me to make it something very common with the risk that regular users twick it to allow compatibility. |
|
Cyrille Bougot wrote:
Talking about manifest in the change log is not a problem for the already two mentions:
1. The following sentence is in the dev changes, so no problem to mention menifest:
Add-on authors are now able to provide NVDA version compatibility information in add-on manifests. (#6275, #9055)
That is an old item, I'm not sure of its relevance.
I was talking about the first line under changes for developers, in the
2021.1 beta changes.t2t.
Note: this is an Add-on API compatibility breaking release. Add-ons will
need to be re-tested and have their manifest updated.
It is a similar note to the one you are trying to remove from the blurb.
I think that since it appears there, it does not need to be emphasized in
the blurb.
As explained in my comment in the code, putting the word "manifest" in the blurb seems to me to make it something very common with the risk that regular
users twick it to allow compatibility.
Yes, I agree with you there.
|
|
@XLTechie wrote:
Oh sorry. I have misunderstood your previous comment. |
|
#12426 was not written by an add-on author, so it would not have been the
target of the notice anyway.
While I like my suggestion if we have to go with the wordy version, I
personally prefer what @Qchristensen wrote--it is more inline with my
initial thoughts, for what my opinion is worth.
|
|
I guess with the downgrade of eSpeak (#12495), a new beta will be released. Could we progress this PR as well to have it merged and translated? All NVAccess people (@Qchristensen , @seanbudd , @feerrenrut), your replies are pending on the following threads:
|
|
Urrgh, fixing conflicts using the web editor has changed all the line endings. I'll fix this up tomorrow. |
Qchristensen
left a comment
Qchristensen
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, thanks Reef!
779a373 to
f60c4b8
Compare
5 participants
Link to issue number:
None
Summary of the issue:
This PR aims to gather issues found in the beta stage.
The following issue have been found:
Description of how this pull request fixes the issue:
Modified the change log as follows:
Testing strategy:
Check the change log generated by appVeyor.
Known issues with pull request:
None
Change log entries:
None of course!
Code Review Checklist: