Update ReadMe.md before 2025-04

[HwWobbe]

• "Before 2025-04" means Complete not later than 2025-03-31.

Summary by Sourcery

Documentation:

• Clarifies that 'Before 2025-04' means complete not later than 2025-03-31 in the ReadMe.md file.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

This pull request updates the ReadMe.md file to clarify the meaning of the phrase 'Before 2025-04', specifying that it means complete no later than 2025-03-31.

No diagrams generated as the changes look simple and do not need a visual representation.

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Updated the ReadMe.md file to include a clarification regarding the meaning of 'Before 2025-04'.	Added a statement clarifying that 'Before 2025-04' means complete no later than 2025-03-31.	ReadMe.md

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!
• Generate a plan of action for an issue: Comment @sourcery-ai plan on
  an issue to generate a plan of action for it.

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @HwWobbe - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:

Overall Comments:

• This change doesn't seem substantial enough to warrant a pull request.

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟡 General issues: 1 issue found
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟢 Testing: all looks good
• 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
• 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[sourcery-ai]

suggestion (typo): "Asks" should likely be lowercase ("asks").

[HwWobbe]

perhaps Asks... would be an adequate indication that this string is capitalized since it is expected to be recognized as CamelCase in other environments that it exists in.

[sourcery-ai]

Thanks for the feedback! I understand the desire to indicate that "Asks" is intended to be CamelCase. However, in the context of a README, prioritizing readability and natural language flow is generally preferred. Using "asks" in lowercase would likely be more easily understood by a wider audience.

If the term "Asks" is consistently used as CamelCase within the project's codebase or related documentation, it might be worth adding a separate note or glossary entry to explicitly define it. This would provide clarity without sacrificing readability in the main text.

Alternatively, consider rephrasing the sentence to avoid the issue altogether. For example, "try using question prompts..." or "consider incorporating a question-based approach..."

[HwWobbe]

Generate a GitHub issue from the Asks review comment