Remove Visual Studio for Mac from readme

[Romfos]

• Remove some not needed warning suppressions
• Remove Visual Studio for Mac from readme

Visual Studio for Mac is deprecated
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/visualstudio/visual-studio-for-mac-retirement-announcement/

note: no changes in product, no need to release new nuget package

[dtchepak]

nitpick (non-blocking): I think the PR description would be good to include in the commit message. It is a good explanation of the changes. 👍

[Romfos]

nitpick (non-blocking): I think the PR description would be good to include in the commit message. It is a good explanation of the changes. 👍

done, but

I think this is very strange requirement because:

1. After merge every commit have link to PR with full discussion
2. Solution could be changed during review and have requirement to have it in commit message - very strange
3. What if we have multiple commits?
4. make sense to enable "squash" merge (will merge all commits in one with PR title as message). It could be enable in repo settings (+you can choose default merge method)

from my experience make sense to use commits for commits, pr for pr and do not mix conceptions

now commit message looks ugly =)

[dtchepak]

The following is my opinion. Please take with a grain of salt 🧂 😄

1. After merge every commit have link to PR with full discussion

My aim here is to have the repo largely independent from the host. If you checkout locally and go offline it would be good to have as much useful info as you can available to you. Also if we switched from github for some reason, it is nice if the code repo is the source of truth for a lot of this stuff. We do make some concessions for practicality like linking to MRs for relevant discussions, but I like the commits to stand on their own. (They don't have to show the discussion, just the end result of what is in the commit).

2. Solution could be changed during review and have requirement to have it in commit message - very strange

The commit shouldn't match the MR description; it should describe the change. In this case the PR description just happened to match what was in the commit, but that info was missing from the commit message. (i.e. why was VS for Mac removed from readme? We know it was removed by looking at the diff, but what we can't tell is why)

If there is PR discussion that results in changes that will often result in a new commit with an appropriate message.

3. What if we have multiple commits?

Each commit should summarise the main aims of/rationale for the changes made in that commit. Multiple commits is fine; each message will describe each commit's contents.

4. make sense to enable "squash" merge (will merge all commits in one with PR title as message). It could be enable in repo settings (+you can choose default merge method)

We can do that. The default squash will include all commit messages. In a well-structured MR this should effectively describe the aggregate changes.

from my experience make sense to use commits for commits, pr for pr and do not mix conceptions

I agree with this. I think my request may have been confusing in this case as the MR description happens to be a close match for the commit contents. Main thing: commit message should describe stuff done in the commit that may not be obvious from a quick glance at the diff.

now commit message looks ugly =)

It is beautiful, thank you! 😂 🙇