On 06/17/2007 11:02, Stephen Houston wrote: > You fit into core. The core group is authors from e, evas, ecore, edje, > eet, > embryo. > > The groups should be less specific than ETK, EWL. I feel the groups should > be Core, Libraries, Applications, Modules, Web. Other than that, good > ideas.
Just to try and clarify a little: The idea behind the groups was primarily as a tool to help dynamic creation of the web page. The old web page had developers/contributors listed in groups depending on the things they contributed to. This was an attempt to list those groups in the info file so we could create the web page on the fly. The one exceptional group in my mind (aside from "The Group of One" which is raster himself) was/is Core. I always felt as though this was the group of "Senior Developers". Those devs with more experience with *E* code, were well aware of any design goals and philosophy, and those whose opinions carried a little more weight than other developers. As noted before... my impression here may be incorrect, as it is tainted by the fact that the FreeBSD organization uses a "Core" group for this purpose, and maybe that meaning does not apply to E as such. Another thing to note is that my proposal is in no way an attempt to "Reorganize" the structure of E. Some people have commented that they wish to not have any sort of hierarchy/structure. But the fact is *there is* an unwritten structure to E. I am simply attempting to get us to write it down. The reasons for this attempt are two fold. 1) Partially selfish. *I* desire to know more about the devs. I've only been around a short while and still have yet to meet many of the devs. I don't know who works on what nor how long they've been around. I would find that info useful. 2) I think it will help the E community to know this information as well, for similar reasons. -ravenlock > > On 6/17/07, Ravenlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Well, >> >> Its been a few days. The ML has been completely silent on this issue. >> >> I received quite a few comments on IRC, mostly positive. I did have one >> or two people who did not like the proposal, but by the end of >> conversation they had come around. >> >> So... not really sure what to say here. I was hoping there would be >> some good discussion on the ML so that I/we could definitively say we >> were either adopting some changed format or simply leaving it alone. >> Maybe I simply haven't waited long enough, and someone may still speak >> up. >> >> A couple of people have already gone ahead and changed their info files. >> I think I will do the same (Its my proposal so of course *I* like the >> idea.). The new format should be "backwards compatible" with the old >> with respect to any script that might be reading it, so maybe there is >> no harm done. >> >> Fwiw... since there has been no discussion of the group field... I am >> unsure what group I would belong to. Using the old definition of >> "someone who is interested in contributing to E as a whole, not just one >> project/subsystem" I feel I belong to the "Core" group. If someone >> feels this is in error... please let me know, as I am interested in >> "where I fit in". >> >> -ravenlock >> >> On 06/14/2007 12:45, Ravenlock wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > (fwiw... while this is not particularly development related, its >> > developer comments I am interested in so I sent it to the Devel ML) >> > >> > There seems to be some disagreement on the intention of the fields in >> > the info.txt files. This seems to be made worse by the fact that we >> are >> >> > now parsing these files for website content. IMHO, I think parsing >> them >> > is a Good Thing (TM). >> > >> > So I'd like to open a discussion on format changes. Here is what I am >> > thinking might be useful: >> > >> > Login: CVS Login >> > IRC Nick: >> > Name: <First> [[<Middle>] <Last>] >> > Location: >> > E-Mail: [-]<e-mail address> >> > WWW: URL >> > Managing: If you can say "Damnit stop doing that!!! This is *MY* >> > project!" List it here. If you are the original >> > author(s) of some subsystem of E, list it. >> > Contributing: If you have successfuly made changes to it. Feel free >> > to list it here. >> > Group: Must be in one or more groups. >> > Platform: Platform(s) you run E17 on. Your *Preferred* one listed >> > first please. >> > >> > >> > Notes: >> > 1) Anything with more than one item should be comma separated. >> > WWW, managing, contributing, platform, etc. >> > >> > 2) The hyphen which precedes the e-mail address should prevent it >> > from being posted by any scripts to any sites. Useful for when >> > you do in fact desire for your e-mail to be available to folks... >> > just don't want it on the web site. >> > >> > 3) I think platform is a nice addition, as I frequently hear pple on >> IRC >> >> > asking if E works on this platform or that, or if it works well. I >> > think it is nice to know who is running a similar platform as you so >> > that you might converse about issues specific to that platform. I know >> > I would like a list of the FreeBSD users. :) >> > >> > 4) Groups might be Core, EWL, ETK, Themes, WebSite, whatever we decide. >> > Poeple *must* be in one or more groups. This will help with >> dynamically >> > constructing the peoples page on the website. Additionally, I have >> > always thought of the "Core" group as meaning "Senior devs with some >> > amount of authority over E17 as a whole". That philosophy comes >> from my >> >> > FreeBSD associations. So it may not in fact mean as much. But, I am >> > wondering if we could actually create such a group. I think it >> would be >> > useful for people (be them a "junior" developer like myself, or >> users of >> >> > E) when seeking help on an issue or possibly arbitration of some >> > disagreement. So I wonder if those in such a group shouldn't be >> > appointed by raster, or agreed upon by the devs, or simply entered into >> > after so many days/months/years of service to E? A valid set of groups >> > must be identified or it will not be possible to use this field for >> > dynamic web creation. Just thoughts. >> > >> > There also seems to be a group of contributors whom we would like to >> > give credit to, yet they do not have cvs access. Might we setup one >> > directory to house info files for them in. possibly just naming the >> > files IRCNick.txt and use the above format? Then they could get >> parsed, >> >> > and put in the groups needed (if we use groups). >> > >> > Just some thoughts. Hoping people will comment. I have no idea if a >> > change is really needed... but seems like it could be good to discuss. >> > >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Ravenlock >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express >> Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take >> control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. >> http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ >> _______________________________________________ >> enlightenment-devel mailing list >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >> > -- Regards, Ravenlock ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
