> On 21 Feb 2024, at 04:01, Stefan Kangas wrote: > >> Basically as a minimum make sure it works for more people than just me. > > What happens if it doesn't "work" in this context? Can it hurt or is it > just an extra feature that they won't benefit from? In terms of “working" I would consider the following: * The appropriate schemas are activated for the appropriate and expected files. * The schemas, when activated, do not create warnings for correctly formatted XML-files (according to that schema). In terms of NOT working, I would consider the following: * A schema is activated for a file which it is not appropriate for. * A schema, when activated for an appropriate file-type, flags correctly formatted XML-elements within that file as erroneous. > - I think this should also come with updates to etc/schemas/README > describing the copyright and legal status of these new schemas. > See that file to get an idea of what's needed. I didn't know about that one. Will look into it! > - Does "Dotnet" also include "Mono" (or some other free software > replacement)? If yes, I think the commit message should say so > explicitly, so that we mention both but advertise mainly the free > version. I.e. it should say "Mono/Dotnet" rather than "Dotnet/Mono". Not going to go for a technical deep dive here, but in short: - .NET Framework was a closed-source Windows only development platform created by Microsoft - Mono is a open-source cross-platform reimplementation of .NET Framework Today when one refers to .NET when typically refers to the “new” modern .NET project (with no “framework” suffix), which is both open-source and cross-platform. Modern .NET supersedes .NET Framework, and in many ways Mono as well. While all file-types covered by schemas submitted here are relevant/applicable to all those three development platforms, as they all work on the same type of source-files and build-systems… I would argue that the “main” development target these days for any developer working on up to date tooling is going to be .NET, not Mono. As such, I think just referring to it as dotnet is appropriate. > - Should this be called out in NEWS? It could. I have no opinion on how “big” a feature/change has to be before it’s considered newsworthy. I’ll let more seasoned Emacs-contributors decide that, if that’s OK. > - (This should also have a proper ChangeLog in the commit message, of > course.) I thought I added a pretty decent one in my commit… Was that not included in the patch? Or do you mean adding it to a ChangeLog file of some sort? If so, which one? — Kind Regards Jostein Kjønigsen