From 94d7a44b349e8fa45fb5c536ec6c6dd9b0777ee0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Butterick Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 05:52:08 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] Update README.md --- README.md | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 6a79ec6..d668b47 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -47,6 +47,8 @@ I welcome pull requests. But accepting a PR obligates me to maintain that code f * PRs should avoid reinventing features that already exist in Racket. +* I follow these principles too, because they’re virtuous habits. Still, I created Pollen as a tool for my writing and typography work. If a certain PR would negatively impact that work, I can’t accept it. + * If you’re new to Pollen or Racket, your PR is more likely to be declined, because certain things you perceive as bugs are actually features, certain things you perceive as missing are actually present, and certain limitations you perceive as surmountable are actually not. (See also point #1 re: backdrop of ignorance.) * PRs that could have unit tests, and don’t, will be treated harshly. As they should.