Thanks for your contribution!
You need to sign the contributor license agreement first, we can't take your changes otherwise.

@coreice As brackets is an open source project, The contributor license agreement is for your protection as well as the protection of Brackets and its licensees; it does not change your rights to use your own Contributions for any other purpose.

@abose I'm aware of that. I hope my contribution will be approved.

@coreice have you signed the CLA?

@abose He has (according to grunt cla-check --user=coreice), but the Travis build fails either way for some reason. I've restarted it twice now without success.
E: Oh, I see, it failed for an other reason now. At least the CLA check works 👍

@ispieter @githrdw Would you mind doing a quick review on these changes & additions to the Dutch translation?

@coreice Could you update this PR.
@ispieter Are there any specific modifications that need to be done here?

Yes, I see several errors in the translations. @abose, what is the best way to mark these? Should I leave a comment on all of them?

If you can mark these errors I will fix them.

@ispieter It's best to add a line note to every line you'd like to be changed.
It'd be very helpful if you could include both an explanation of what's wrong in your opinion and a suggested correction.

@coreice Please make sure you fix the linting errors and the missppelled key, too.

These are the things that I found. The rest seems fine to me. :)

Thanks a lot, I will process them :). I hope it will be ready this week but I've a busy schedule so it also could be next week.

Thanks @ispieter for reviewing this. @coreice Did you get a chance to look into this? Brackets will have a release within the next two weeks.

@abose Just returned home from a convention. Will be working on it now :). Do you want me to create a new edit and pull request after I'm done?

Edit 16.02 gmt+2: done with editing the errors.

👍 Editing this PR would be good for other reviewers to keep track of the changes.

Updated the PR. Thanks for checking @marcelgerber & @ispieter, there were some stupid mistakes in the previous one. I hope this one will be better :).

@ispieter Does this look good to you?

You should also update the SHA comment at the very bottom. This is based on 50cbe1b (50cbe1b8848786c6be27d4788e4b6a367244abc2), I guess.

@marcelgerber You're right. Fixed the SHA comment.

Yes, looks good to me.

Thank you @coreice @ispieter.
Merging.