On 2002-12-05 at 1759.57 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:20:28 -0500, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2002-12-05 at 1320.57 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this:
> > > On 05 Dec 2002 12:42:28 +0100, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > However I don't think we want to build this file automatically from
> > > > CVS. [...]
> > > So it would be rather difficult to extract the names of the contributors
> > > from the CVS logs automatically. The best solution is to rely on the
> > > AUTHORS file that is updated by hand, until we find a better solution.
> > i am worried that if you make it too hard of a job, you will scare away
> > anyone that might like to help.
> Well, I think that both Sven and I agree on the fact that we should not
> try to build the list of GIMP contributors automatically. Updating it
> by hand is the best solution for the moment, because any automated
> solution would be far too complex or unfair (having an unfair list is
> probably worse than having no list or an outdated list).
i would like a web page that shows the last 10 people who contributed
are mentioned in the ChangeLog. i don't know of asking any opinions.
is there something there in the list of the last 10 which should not be
i am not going to change this by hand everyday.
you guys are very frustrating. perhaps i need to ask elsewhere for
> What do we want to do with the AUTHORS file (or any list of GIMP
> contributors)? The last time this was discussed on this list, the
> decision was that it should list the names of all those who have ever
> made a significant contribution to the GIMP, without trying to evaluate
> how important this contribution was nor in which area it was (core code,
> plug-in code, documentation, translations, bug hunting, etc.). People
> who stop contributing are not removed from the list; that's why Spencer
> and Peter are still there (and they should be, IMHO).
the AUTHORS list gets copied as is to a page now. i have no idea how
the information gets there. i like the alphabetical listing also.
the ChangeLog is a completely different matter. chronological and lists
what is going on, without ranking the importance of the contribution.
just listing it. i think that a page that displays the last 10 ChangeLog
items in all of the different gimp projects would be an extremely
> If most people on this list agree that we should not try to sort this
> list in any way or to make it more detailed than it is now, then keeping
> the AUTHORS file up-to-date is not very difficult: we only have to add
> the names of those who have made a significant contribution since the
> last update. But if, on the other hand, you want to change the purpose
> of that list and remove those who haven't contributed recently or sort
> the list by area or by "importance of the contribution" (whatever that
> means), then we should first decide on what we want before trying to
> implement something.
yes. i don't really want to watch it get "sorted out". i would like a
way to read the last 10 additions to each of the gimp projects and
deliver them to a web page.
already, the AUTHORS page is delivered in what ever order to a page. i
am sorry that my last mail casted doubt on where the AUTHORS list comes
from. do you think that dealing with how these files get there to begin
with will keep my little web page from happening?
Gimp-developer mailing list