Attempt to reduce the confusion of the project name about specflow.netcore HOT 7 CLOSED

Thanks for your feedback. You wouldn't believe how long it took me to "simplify" the message while trying to be technically accurate with the terminology. I like what you've come up with and I'll try to appropriate some of it. I'm trying to be consistent with the official docs where "Platform" means OS and netcoreapp is a TFM of a target framework. It's not easy for newcomers or latecomers!

from specflow.netcore.

Cool, thanks for the bump!

I struggled with the overcomplicated defense of the naming. It got way too verbose making the point harder to grok. In the end, I don't think people care about the technical legitimacy of the project name over whether they can use this thing with their project. So rather than delve in to the detail, I've just bullet-pointed the supported/unsupported frameworks. I'm happy with it now, but I'm open to any further suggestions.

Also, I've moved the warning/callout to the top of the README as you suggested.

from specflow.netcore.

Nice write-up. Hopefully we can get the package + readme in such a state that things are a little clearer for newcomers.

from specflow.netcore.

@smudge202 Care to review the README changes?

from specflow.netcore.

Ironically, this sentence I had to read a couple times to grasp:

If you find it confusing that this project includes "NetCore" in the name, yet it only supports .NET Framework and not .NET Core Application, remember the above limitation of SpecFlow and that it is a legitimate usage of a .NET Core package:

I wonder if something along the lines of this would be any easier for people to digest:

The reason this project is named "SpecFlow.NetCore" is not because we support the netcoreapp platforms, but instead because we allow for the new style tooling (like the new csproj format) that was introduced with .Net Core. Support for the netcoreapp platform (and other non-Full Framework platforms) is completely constrained by development of the SpecFlow project which you can contribute to here <-- insert a link.

I would also be tempted to move that entire section above the Solution section so it appears much earlier in the readme. Many people won't read past the "this code samples gets you up and running" bit.

Otherwise, looks good.

from specflow.netcore.

Just poking this issue because I brought up the project on twitter today - in case there's a small influx of people curious about this.

https://twitter.com/Smudge202/status/963374877309796352

from specflow.netcore.

#85 (comment)

from specflow.netcore.