On Saturday 04 July 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
> displayed, and to invite the user to see the website for more details
> -- so long as the essentials are there. I don't mind if you'd prefer
> to include everything possible either and tab it, though, just like
> the classic version. I'd be happy to leave those judgements to you.
We used to have a list of authors in the KAboutData, and another list of
authors in the AUTHORS file and another list of authors on the website, plus
whatever list we maintained for any specific release. We used to have a
breakdown of a couple bullet points about who did what, and then as people
grew beyond more than four bullet points, they became "primary authors" or
whatever, but not "core developers." Neither "core developers" nor "primary
authors" had bullet points.
This was all hell to maintain, and mostly it languished, and what got done in
one place was frequently not propagated throughout the entire credit system.
Over the last several releases, I have been focusing less on the hard coded
credit system, including the about box, and concentrating more on getting
proper documentation for who did what in a particular release into that
release's note. I think all of these have been constructed on or ported to
the wiki, and they're readily obtainable from SourceForge or the list
archives too.
I've been working on extending the ideas that have guided the last few
releases, and simplifying our entire credit system. The new system is based
on the principle that the best way to avoid making anyone feel like they have
been slighted more than anyone else is to slight everyone equally. This same
principle is very evident in the decision we took some time back to change
all the copyright notes to read:
Copyright 2000-2009 the Rosegarden development team.
See the AUTHORS file for more details.
The way I see it, "the Rosegarden development team" for release n is best
defined as the master historical list online (to credit everything that has
come before) plus the release note (to credit the specific doings that went
into that one particular release.)
Now we have an AUTHORS file that points to the website:
http://rosegardenmusic.com/resources/authors/
The authors page on the website starts with a festive retrospective look back
at the project's origins, and mentions all the current and former core
developers and the roles they played historically. It winds up with a flat
list of everyone who has contributed anything of note to code, graphic design
(eg. icons), documentation, or translation (all of which I
consider "development" work). The list is in approximately chronological
order, with the oldest contributors appearing at the top.
In addition, we have the future release note at:
http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/wiki/dev:9.x
This note starts off with a special list of people who helped with the port,
who deserve an extra measure of credit for working on that horrible monster
of a job, as opposed to more routine contribution.
To see how that sorts out, let's take the case of the new contributions from
Immanuel Litzroth. He isn't there yet (see, maintenance problems even after
simplification), but he needs to be tacked onto the bottom of the list on the
authors page, and his place in the release note depends on what he does from
here. The new Frontier Tranzport bit is not work on the port per se, even
though it's a new feature done within this new codebase, so he's currently
an "other people who contributed." If he untangles the bank manager (touch
wood) then he shoots right up to fame and glory on the porting team itself.
Of course that future release note is nothing more than a draft, but that's
the general idea how it's supposed to work now.
Having laid all of that out, I think we should DEFINITELY AVOID hard coding
any of this in the about box. Have a couple of links, one to the master
authors list, and another one to the current release note.
We already have two lists to maintain, which basically means I already have
two lists to maintain. Nobody else has kept up with any of this in quite a
long time. About data is EVIL. Let's not go there.
I do rather like the idea of having some blurb about "the translation you're
using brought to you by..." but even that has limitations. Do I deserve
credit for the entire Spanish translation, even though I've been maintaining
it for the last few releases? Not really. Then take German. Thorsten has
been busting his balls on THOUSANDS of strings, but what do we do five years
after he disappears when some new guy translates 100 strings?
It really is another example of where the only way to avoid slighting anyone
more than everyone else is to slight everyone equally.
The "historical blurb" is somewhat shaky ground in all of this, I admit.
Where do we draw the line singling out the few who deserve really special
mention? I'm on the list because I make the list baby, and you make the list
because I have to put you on it or you'll actually use a smiley face in an
email (which will cause a black hole to open up at the center of the earth),
but beyond that it's really muddy. That's why I tried to more or less cut it
all off somewhere after Heikki came on, as he is listed as a current admin.
--
D. Michael McIntyre
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
[email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
