Hi, Not sure if I should be posting to this list, however, I thought I'd take a chance and chime in on 2 points:
1. *Lower Barriers to Entry*. My guess is that the absolute easiest way for potential contributors to contribute a package is to simply ask them to upload a tar.gz archive of their project. Supply them with a handful of requirements, such as: * name format for the tar.gz file {like so}, * inside the unpacked project dir, its directory structure should look {like this}, * it should contain a package meta-data file named {such-and-such}, and the file should contain {the following sorts of data}. Then the contributor would not even have to know what sort of archiving or version control is done on the Chicken/Egg side of things. And they could use whatever version control they like. 2. *Documentation*. Python's [Cheeseshop](http://cheeseshop.python.org) has a neat feature where, if your project has html documentation, you can (manually) upload it directly to http://packages.python.org/project-name . This way, contributors aren't forced to use any particular source format for their docs -- as long as they can generate html from it before uploading [^1]. In fact, you could go one further and require that packages contain an `html-doc` dir with at least an index.html file in it. Then you could trivially automate and eliminate the doc upload step. [^1]: Incidentally, the [Pandoc](http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/) tool works well for converting various input doc formats to various output doc formats (including html). Just my opinion, but if it's as easy as pie to create and upload a simple tar.gz package with some html docs (even if it's just a Markdown-formatted readme converted to html), and if there's a culture that encourages people to do so, then I think they will. ---John _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers