From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 21:52:20 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Buildroot manual: author list In-Reply-To: <871tvfdmyx.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <20140527193640.GE3503@free.fr> <871tvfdmyx.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20140527195220.GF3503@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Peter, All, On 2014-05-27 21:45 +0200, Peter Korsgaard spake thusly: > >>>>> "Yann" == Yann E MORIN writes: > >> I'm leaning more to a. or b. than to c. > >> The advantage of a. over b. is that there is no discussion about whose > >> name should be in the list (where to draw the line), while b. has the > >> advantage of giving more explicit credit. > > > As I suggested on IRC: what about a.+c.? Just change the introduction to: > > > Buildroot manual by the Buildroot developers, see xref:credits[]. > > > and add the appendix 'credits' at the end of the manual? > > I would also suggest we go for a (unless any of the people explictly > listed would disagree). We don't list authorship anywhere else (E.G. in > the .mk files) in Buildroot, and it sounds like a pain to maintain such > a list and decide what a 'major contribution' is. Oh, we'd maintain the same way we maintain the list of packages: with a little bit of scripting and a make target in docs/manual/manual.mk. But I'm fine with just a., too. I just misunderstood Thomas DS' c-suggestion. Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'