I have implemented most of these changes now. http://users.skynet.be/pereinar/mod-perl/about/people.html
Haven't removed module authors yet.
At 13:50 29.05.2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
BTW, if anybody complains about wrong details we can always fix those. We just try our best and errors are possible.
Yes, I'll add a note about that...
* Gerald Richter is not working on the 2.0 build system. He work on abstracting the existing system. the 2.0 build system is a courtesy of Doug.
Hmm, he told me he worked on the build system :) But sure.
I know, but that sounds like he wrote the build system. that's unfair to Doug. When Gerald will have some working thing we will update his info.
I changed it to "abstracting".
1) Layout: ok? Tell me what you want, I fix.
looks fine, though I like the way http://httpd.apache.org/contributors/ gives a short TOC of all contributors. Also they include a short description which I suggest to be on our site more generic: core, modules, docs, support, advocacy, etc. Plus things like
Hmm, as I said (I think), the problem with this is that the list would be very long without necessarily giving much added benefit. I like the fact of dealing people up into categories, but we are faced with the problem that many of the contributors have contributed to the core, modules, docs, support *and* advocacy!
So what? let it be long. But at least we need a simple TOC. We can start with a simple TOC and later add more info if we feel like doing that.
Hmm, so core and docs? I think that'd be the best. Although I still think that separating people into 2 categories is bad.
Maybe I'll try a TOC by name with some short description as on the HTTPD list.
Second yes, just follow the concept in docs/credits.pod, the last item lists just the names of contributors. Though don't comma separate it, but use the items just as in the above file. So names will be easier to read and spot.
Ok. It'll be a pretty long list (there is a pretty long list there, and one more in CREDITS.pod from modperl CVS). That's why I wanted to make it a separate page.
I didn't say separate page is a bad idea. I was just saying not to collapse all the names into one sentence.
Hmm, may be we shouldn't merge the two credits files but have 4 files:
credits/docs-major credits/docs-rest credits/code-major credits/code-rest
Again, I don't want to separate people into 2 categories. Everyone has done as much, and if we separate them:
1) Discussion might come up with "what is most profitable for the community, code or docs?" (code will win :)
2) Some people (like you) belong in both.
However, separating major and rest into 2 files is good. (However I think it should be detailed info/no info instead of major/rest).
-- Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
