Diana Shannon wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 08:39 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> Personally in the projects I do on krysalis I simply add the person to
>> the authors.
>
> You know, personally, I like to share credit as much as possible, even
> when I do most of the work. It's easy to do, it's free to give, and for
> the most part, everyone benefits. But not everyone thinks this way.
Yes, someone says that if the patch is not *substantial*, it should not
get credits.
Well, let me say that if it's not of any use, it wouldn't be committed
anyways.
If id does something usefull, then it's important as any.
In a car, what is more important, the steering wheel or the motor?
>> A one-line patch can be more important than the file itself, and
>> making the committer make the decision is not predictable enough.
>
> Of course, but not always. Unfortunately, it gets subjective. I'm trying
> to figure out what's fair.
That's why making someone decide gets tricky.
The rule "one patch, you get your name appended" is easy and air enough
IMHO.
>> The first author is the creator, and then the others.
>
> So, you are proposing anyone who submits a patch -- regardless of how
> substantive -- gets added to the list of authors, after the creator?
Yes.
>I
> assume you are ok with the idea that revision content would still be
> useful.
Well, if we have revision, it's implied that the creator(s) are the
authors, and then the revisors.
By putting them all in authors, we are just saying that the first is the
author, so it's the same.
The important thing IMHO is that when you edit, your name gets listed
in sequence after the ones that created-edited before you.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
