True, but things change pretty quickly, and it's hard to know what to write up that doesn't miss anything. I think one indication that people can use is to look at the owners of the core repos, because that is guaranteed to be up to date. Also recent commits. Documenting this further seems not worth it to me.
- Alon On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Hamish Willee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Warren Seine <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 1:24:52 AM UTC+2, Hamish Willee wrote: >>> >>> >>>> - introduce the core team in a single place (with Twitter and >>>> GitHub handles, blogs) >>>> >>>> On further consideration this *may *be useful, but probably would be >>> better as a wiki article which can easily be kept up to date. I am >>> considering is "out of scope" unless there is strong support for it being >>> part of the documentation. >>> >> >> A wiki article sounds fine. Even if I don't feel strongly about it, I >> think this would be a good thing to learn more about the people behind the >> tech. AUTHORS.txt is more a "legal" thing than a way to reach people. >> > > I agree. From a "community" point of view it is useful to have profiles > of key players and an understanding of their history in that community. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "emscripten-discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "emscripten-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
