[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: snippet authorship

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: snippet authorship
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:31:34 -0700

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:39:42 +0200
"Valentin Villenave" <address@hidden> wrote:

> 2008/4/24 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> >  > Yes, but that way the author's name won't be displayed at all
> >  > (even the comment will be stripped out).
> >
> >  Umm, yes.  That is exactly the point.
> In this case, why on earth would you like the authors to sign their
> snippets *at all*?

Dunno.  If you have some LSR-ish reason for it, go ahead.  As I
said before, I'm not convinced it's useful, but I'm not going to
argue against it.

> >  We have a THANKS file for a reason -- adding attributions to every
> >  single contribution is unweildly.
> If this is a matter of THANKS, then we should just use the LSR user
> accounts to have a list of contributors.

Good idea.  I'd prefer to get their real names instead of LSR user
names, though.  Feel free to add this to the THANKS.  One issue,
though: we generally don't list people in multiple places; if
somebody's already down for main devel team or GDP, I don't think
we need to list them separately as a LSR contributor.

> >  > I don't have any solution, but it's a pity that we always have to
> >  > print either the *whole* code verbatim or no code at all.
> >
> >  Not a pity at all.  We /want/ to show the whole file.
> I get your point, but aren't there some examples in the documentation
> where we have to add not-directly-relevant commands to make the
> examples clearer? e;g. adding some breaks, some alignment rules or
> whatever?

With the exception of the first item of the tutorial and the
automatic accidental list, none that I've allowed.

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]