On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
I had some random people contact me with questions about the modules
I've written and I suspect it was due to the AUTHORS block, so it is
useful to users.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Nathann Cohen wrote:
code is not static like a scientific paper. Con
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 14:22:14 UTC-6, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-22 21:24, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > I guess he cared more about acknowledgements
>
> There is nothing wrong with caring about acknowledgements.
>
> I usually add my name as author when I feel that I'm contributing
> I usually add my name as author when I feel that I'm contributing something
> new, not just fixing bugs.
It can make sense to add your name when you add something new, but
code is not static like a scientific paper. Contrary to it, code is
modified over time and after a while an authors block do
On 2015-09-22 21:24, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
I guess he cared more about acknowledgements
There is nothing wrong with caring about acknowledgements.
I usually add my name as author when I feel that I'm contributing
something new, not just fixing bugs.
Note that the "git blame" doesn't tell mu
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 12:00:36 UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 8:12:26 PM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> One way or another, there are Copyright notices with names in many files,
>>
>
> Copyright notices are an entirely different topic from this thread
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 11:49:37 UTC-7, William wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote:
>
> >> Who?
> >> Is he removing his own name or other people's name?
> >
> > see done by the request of the reviewer
>
> Nathann Cohen seems to have written:
>
>"w
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 8:12:26 PM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> One way or another, there are Copyright notices with names in many files,
>
Copyright notices are an entirely different topic from this thread. No /
unclear copyright means: No right for Sage to distribute. So they are
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> Who?
>> Is he removing his own name or other people's name?
>
> see done by the request of the reviewer
Nathann Cohen seems to have written:
"what is this?" about this in your patch: "+- cf. ``git blame`` for
the others involved"
Th
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 01:38:03 UTC-7, William wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 21, 2015, Dima Pasechnik > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 21 September 2015 21:42:31 UTC-7, William wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>>> > I have written a couple of AUTHOR
I had some random people contact me with questions about the modules I've
written and I suspect it was due to the AUTHORS block, so it is useful to
users.
Regarding git, it took me a while to get reasonably comfortable with it and
while I like it now, it is unreasonable to expect someone to lea
I am not that developer :-)
How about this system?
We trim the AUTHOR blocks by just listing the names of contributors to the
given module (to give credits to the contributors);
And we recommend a new contributor to add his/her name to the end of the
list (to give more credits to the initial
On Monday, September 21, 2015, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, 21 September 2015 21:42:31 UTC-7, William wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>> > I have written a couple of AUTHORS-blocks, but I think I did it not to
>> have
>> > a credit but to be responsible
Hi,
this decision, which appears to have reached a consensus, is now
implemented at: http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19238
Ciao,
Thierry
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:55:56AM -0700, William Stein wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2014 5:26 AM, "kcrisman" wrote:
> >
> > Ordinarily I'd be against this sort of th
On Oct 30, 2014 5:26 AM, "kcrisman" wrote:
>
> Ordinarily I'd be against this sort of thing, but I agree that this
concept has not proved to be useful - any given maintainer rarely actually
does keep up with things for more than a year or two, though in aggregate
the community does pretty well wit
Ordinarily I'd be against this sort of thing, but I agree that this concept
has not proved to be useful - any given maintainer rarely actually does
keep up with things for more than a year or two, though in aggregate the
community does pretty well with many of them.
I think that the concept of
I agree let's get rid of this.
I've updated a bunch of packages but did not feel like filling this field
with my name as I couldn't promise I'll keep on maintaining the packages.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe fro
On 2014-10-29 09:32, Francois Bissey wrote:
> +1
>> On 29/10/2014, at 21:24, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> all SPKG.txt files list "SPKG Maintainers". I never quite understood the
>> reason for this. Mostly, this seems to have been added once when creating
>> the SPKG and indeed many
+1
> On 29/10/2014, at 21:24, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> all SPKG.txt files list "SPKG Maintainers". I never quite understood the
> reason for this. Mostly, this seems to have been added once when creating the
> SPKG and indeed many "maintainers" have long left Sage. Since these sect
Hello,
all SPKG.txt files list "SPKG Maintainers". I never quite understood the
reason for this. Mostly, this seems to have been added once when
creating the SPKG and indeed many "maintainers" have long left Sage.
Since these sections doesn't seem to have a purpose, can we just remove
those?
19 matches
Mail list logo
