The problem is you usually use some strange language, with not much additional (information) value. Instructions become longer, but usually don't explain anything new, more bloat. Usage of terms like "murky", "anti-climatic", "waxing" ... I don't communicate like that and that is why i have problems merging such PR. As i would never use such language. At least not in such concentration and such short sentence. Normal people read instructions and hence the language needs to be normal. Not too formal and not too loose. Anyway, if your proposal would resolve all that, i wouldn't have hard time merging it. In addition and based on your info and screenshots, you didn't manage to get it working? But you did have all this great ideas, on how to improve the documentation?Kunda1 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 6:04 pm JFYI, I'm not a huge fan of this type of 'Laura Croft Tombraider' style of documentations. AKA searching for clues buried in long murky phpbb threads that need to be waded through while the README.md of the repo is desert sparse that resutls may lead to an anti-climactic treasure. (ok, sorry for waxing polemic)
I prefer documentation that explains how to test even if it's in an alpha state; what known issues are; where more work is needed, and ways to help contribute. I'm trying to help with getting there, but it seems my attempts are not so welcomed.
Wouldn't it make sense, to first make it work, and after the "eureka effect", to propose the documentation change? Just saying.