@techee do as you see fit, I don't mind losing some of the credit or anything ^^
I guess keeping some of the iterations might be interesting, or at least their reasoning when it was non-obvious (e.g. when there was a large-ish comment :)). But yeah some commits are mostly noise so they could get squashed ("small fixes" of mine comes to mind). However if it's hard to get something nice, don't bother too much and we can merge as-is too (I like the history a bit less, but well, not a biggie either).
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/406#issuecomment-188507738
@b4n How should I proceed with the patch? I think the final version after all your improvements works really well - is it OK to squash all the patches together with big thanks to you? (LOC-wise the patch will be more yours than mine now.) Or should I keep them separate? (At least the small patches should be squashed I think.)
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/406#issuecomment-188482981
Should not introduce functional changes, mere code cleanup/improvement/change.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/geany/geany-plugins/pull/353
-- Commit Summary --
* spellcheck: Drop use of the most obvious deprecated Geany API
* spellcheck: Use direct buffer access instead of deprecated API
* spellcheck: Remove unused parameter
* spellcheck: Drop use of deprecated sci_get_text_range()
-- File Changes --
M spellcheck/src/gui.c (31)
M spellcheck/src/scplugin.c (11)
M spellcheck/src/speller.c (34)
M spellcheck/src/speller.h (2)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/geany/geany-plugins/pull/353.patchhttps://github.com/geany/geany-plugins/pull/353.diff
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany-plugins/pull/353