From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Peter_Valdemar_M=F8rch_=28Lists=29=22?= <4ux6as402@sneakemail.com> Subject: Re: git-scm.com Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:19:14 +0200 Message-ID: <488C1362.4010608@sneakemail.com> References: <7v3alxr0fd.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vsktwfu5z.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jul 27 08:20:20 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KMzcB-00036q-LD for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:20:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753053AbYG0GTU convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:19:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752938AbYG0GTT (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:19:19 -0400 Received: from morch.com ([193.58.255.207]:51964 "EHLO morch.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752479AbYG0GTT (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:19:19 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.214] (ANice-157-1-60-153.w90-36.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.36.75.153]) by morch.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB5842765 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:21:14 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724) In-Reply-To: <7vsktwfu5z.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: As a contributer with a single commit I was happy to see myself appear=20 shortly on the list (yeah!). Ok, so I realize it is vanity and a little= =20 silly... :-) Junio C Hamano gitster-at-pobox.com |Lists| wrote: > I have a mild suspicion that sorting that list in alphabetical order = may > actually make it much better. It all depends on the purpose of that = list, > though. To me it makes sense to sort the entire list according to commits. Its=20 still easy to find anybody with search, and I find it appropriate that = I=20 be towards the end. The commit sorting encourages me to move up the=20 list! :-D > And for the "giving credit" purpose, I do not think truncating the li= st at > 5 commits or less threshold, as suggested earlier and already done, m= akes > much sense, either. And why truncate the list? I'd personally like to be back on the list=20 (vanity! - but true), bandwidth is relatively cheap, and there is=20 nothing below the list. I also think it makes the community look healty= =20 and encourages contribution to see how many others contribute. Peter --=20 Peter Valdemar M=F8rch http://www.morch.com