You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Now that the module is updated for Sopel, and Sopel supports third-party modules installable via pip, this one should be published in the repository.
Decision: cookiecutter modules actually reside in the sopel_modules/modname/modname.py file within the git repository. It's probably possible to rewrite the module history to look like it's always been there—and therefore preserve git-blame-ability—but is that worth doing? Probably not. It could mess up Github's Contributions calendar, and would certainly mess up any commit hashes that are referenced in issue/PR histories.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
With support for entry points coming in Sopel 7, I don't see any reason to bother with the cookiecutter template any more. Sopel 6.x is so old it's not worth packaging for at this point.
Now that the module is updated for Sopel, and Sopel supports third-party modules installable via
pip
, this one should be published in the repository.Decision: cookiecutter modules actually reside in the
sopel_modules/modname/modname.py
file within the git repository. It's probably possible to rewrite the module history to look like it's always been there—and therefore preservegit-blame
-ability—but is that worth doing? Probably not. It could mess up Github's Contributions calendar, and would certainly mess up any commit hashes that are referenced in issue/PR histories.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: