Feature/bulk pr for readme updates

[dennissivia]

This PR implements PRs #65, #74, #76.
Some of the PRs contain similar content and other are no longer
based on the current readme. This is an attempt to clean up the
readme state.

[junaruga]

Thanks! It looks good to me!

[dennissivia]

@junaruga Sorry I am not sure the squash merge was right. It looks as if that results in me being the author. We could revert the merge and I will re-do the merge without sqashing.

[junaruga]

@scepticulous Ah in the case, the Squash Marge was not right. 3rd merge option (I forgot the name. The option is merging keeping original commits without merge commit.) was right.
But I am fine :)

[junaruga]

@scepticulous do not worry. Maybe we don't have to revert it. I will write History file about original authors before next release.

[dennissivia]

@junaruga thanks again. Quick question. Your preferred way for the workflow is squash+merge for "ones own" PR and regular merge for things like this, where somebody merges someone's else PR for whatever reason?

[junaruga]

@scepticulous yes your recognition is correct.
Because I want to keep original commit as much as possible.

Some of the contributors do not like that original commit and their name has been removed when merging to master branch.
They may feel that they are not respected by rack-test project.
I have heard some 2 contributors complained about it.
And I can understand the feeling.

[dennissivia]

@junaruga thanks for the update. I can also understand them and I think this process is fine for us as well. It would have been even less work for me in the first place.

[junaruga]

@scepticulous I might find a better operation by chance in another project about how to merge someone's PR keeping the original commit.

Please look at below URL.

ruby/openssl#122

xxxxx changed the base branch to ruby:maint from ruby:master an hour ago

The upstream member was able to rebase my commit on another his branch.
So, maybe we can also do this way for our rack-test project.

[perlun]

@junaruga I don't think it's actually a rebase in that PR you referred to, but rather targeting which branch it will merge into.

[junaruga]

@perlun oh okay. It's my mistake. Thanks for mentioning it.

[perlun]

Maybe you're right, I don't know actually. :)