Well, with the release notes freshly trimmed for 1.14, it seems like a good time to bring this up. A while back, someone or other removed references in specific RELEASE-NOTES features to who submitted the patch to fix the feature. Brion reverted that, calling it bad form. The thing is, though, that's exactly the policy we follow for everyone who contributes to the project: there's no mention in the release notes. The only way you could find out who actually develops MediaWiki at present is by hunting through commit logs and trying to match up names with commit aliases somehow. Special:Version is very incomplete, and most of the people listed aren't currently active.
A lot of projects mention who contributed to specific versions, and I think it would be perfectly reasonable for us to do the same. I would suggest two sections of contributors: people who contributed code to the specific version, and people who contributed translations. Each one could be ordered alphabetically by last name, or some other criterion if people think of one. (Like putting Brion and Tim at top, and maybe putting regular committers above one-time patch submitters.) If someone contributes a patch via Bugzilla or whatever, they get added to the list like anyone who personally committed code, not inline with the feature they added.
What does everyone think?
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
Well, with the release notes freshly trimmed for 1.14, it seems like a good time to bring this up. A while back, someone or other removed references in specific RELEASE-NOTES features to who submitted the patch to fix the feature. Brion reverted that, calling it bad form. The thing is, though, that's exactly the policy we follow for everyone who contributes to the project: there's no mention in the release notes. The only way you could find out who actually develops MediaWiki at present is by hunting through commit logs and trying to match up names with commit aliases somehow. Special:Version is very incomplete, and most of the people listed aren't currently active.
A lot of projects mention who contributed to specific versions, and I think it would be perfectly reasonable for us to do the same. I would suggest two sections of contributors: people who contributed code to the specific version, and people who contributed translations. Each one could be ordered alphabetically by last name, or some other criterion if people think of one. (Like putting Brion and Tim at top, and maybe putting regular committers above one-time patch submitters.) If someone contributes a patch via Bugzilla or whatever, they get added to the list like anyone who personally committed code, not inline with the feature they added.
What does everyone think?
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I'm all for it. I think it's a great way to give credit to those who help out in various ways (contributing patches, translations) but don't necessarily get a share of the spotlight. That's not to say that it should be seen as some sort of badge to wear, just a matter of giving credit where credit is due. I'd be more than willing to add "Patch by so-and-so" or whatever the determined format is.
-Chad
Hoi, Remember to attribute the many people who contribute through the localisation effort of Betawiki... *This *is what makes MediaWiki usable for more then half our public. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:04 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com Simetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, with the release notes freshly trimmed for 1.14, it seems like a good time to bring this up. A while back, someone or other removed references in specific RELEASE-NOTES features to who submitted the patch to fix the feature. Brion reverted that, calling it bad form. The thing is, though, that's exactly the policy we follow for everyone who contributes to the project: there's no mention in the release notes. The only way you could find out who actually develops MediaWiki at present is by hunting through commit logs and trying to match up names with commit aliases somehow. Special:Version is very incomplete, and most of the people listed aren't currently active.
A lot of projects mention who contributed to specific versions, and I think it would be perfectly reasonable for us to do the same. I would suggest two sections of contributors: people who contributed code to the specific version, and people who contributed translations. Each one could be ordered alphabetically by last name, or some other criterion if people think of one. (Like putting Brion and Tim at top, and maybe putting regular committers above one-time patch submitters.) If someone contributes a patch via Bugzilla or whatever, they get added to the list like anyone who personally committed code, not inline with the feature they added.
What does everyone think?
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I'm all for it. I think it's a great way to give credit to those who help out in various ways (contributing patches, translations) but don't necessarily get a share of the spotlight. That's not to say that it should be seen as some sort of badge to wear, just a matter of giving credit where credit is due. I'd be more than willing to add "Patch by so-and-so" or whatever the determined format is.
-Chad
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Remember to attribute the many people who contribute through the localisation effort of Betawiki... *This *is what makes MediaWiki usable for more then half our public. Thanks, GerardM
This already happens, but there was no suggestion to remove the names of translators, or not to put them in any attribution file. I'm sure that siebrand or Nikerabbit could supply a list of names and regularly update such a file (perhaps more easily if translators were split into a different list though).
MinuteElectron.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:13 PM, MinuteElectron minuteelectron@googlemail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Remember to attribute the many people who contribute through the localisation effort of Betawiki... *This *is what makes MediaWiki usable for more then half our public. Thanks, GerardM
This already happens, but there was no suggestion to remove the names of translators, or not to put them in any attribution file. I'm sure that siebrand or Nikerabbit could supply a list of names and regularly update such a file (perhaps more easily if translators were split into a different list though).
MinuteElectron.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I've been bold and added a CREDITS file to the current trunk (r38020). Listed alphabetically by first name (or username, if I didn't know the real name) are Developers (those with commit) Patch submitters (people who don't commit but help on Bugzilla/IRC/etc), and translators. I suppose it's simple enough to update the list with new names as they occur.
Thoughts on it? Change of style?
-Chad
On 25/07/2008, MinuteElectron minuteelectron@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm sure that siebrand or Nikerabbit could supply a list of names and regularly update such a file (perhaps more easily if translators were split into a different list though).
It's not that straightforward.
Which translators to include? - core and extensions or only core - only translators after some specific date - everyone who has ever changed a message that is still in use - only the people who 'own' a latest edit in any of the messages (currently in use with no-remove policy) - people who do maintenance work for all languages
Will the file be cleared for every release?
Which format to use? - real name (not currently available for use in Betawiki) - user name (currently in use) - email address - year
Will the credits in message files stay as-is?
These are the things that I can quickly think of. I'd like to note, again, we are quite busy. I don't want to sound desperate, but it shows up already.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Niklas Laxström niklas.laxstrom@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/07/2008, MinuteElectron minuteelectron@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm sure that siebrand or Nikerabbit could supply a list of names and regularly update such a file (perhaps more easily if translators were split into a different list though).
It's not that straightforward.
Which translators to include?
- core and extensions or only core
- only translators after some specific date
- everyone who has ever changed a message that is still in use
- only the people who 'own' a latest edit in any of the messages
(currently in use with no-remove policy)
- people who do maintenance work for all languages
I would say only core. As the CREDITS is aimed only at core software, the associated "Translators" list should be on the same core. If various extensions want to give credit (I think a few other extensions have a CREDITS-type file?), then they can do it themselves. I would say add all the usernames who've contributed to messages within a specific release.
Will the file be cleared for every release?
When making CREDITS, I specified at the top that it's for 1.14. I figured that since the pool of developers changes over time (people come and go, it's natural), it's best to list who contributed to _that_ version. Once branched, the CREDITS file will remain the same for that version, and a new one will be started.
Which format to use?
- real name (not currently available for use in Betawiki)
- user name (currently in use)
- email address
- year
I listed alphabetically by first name or username, whichever is known. I'm open to other ideas, if anyone has them.
Will the credits in message files stay as-is?
No reason to tweak those, IMO.
These are the things that I can quickly think of. I'd like to note, again, we are quite busy. I don't want to sound desperate, but it shows up already.
-- Niklas Laxström
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Chad wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Niklas Laxström niklas.laxstrom@gmail.com wrote:
Will the file be cleared for every release?
When making CREDITS, I specified at the top that it's for 1.14. I figured that since the pool of developers changes over time (people come and go, it's natural), it's best to list who contributed to _that_ version. Once branched, the CREDITS file will remain the same for that version, and a new one will be started.
All users who contributed to a previous version will have effectively contributed to any version after that, since there contributions will still be in the code base. It seams unfair to remove people simply because they did not contribute specifically to the very latest version, even if there changes are still in use and enjoyed by the users.
MinuteElectron.
All users who contributed to a previous version will have effectively contributed to any version after that, since there contributions will still be in the code base. It seams unfair to remove people simply because they did not contribute specifically to the very latest version, even if there changes are still in use and enjoyed by the users.
If we list everyone, though, the list will get prohibitively long. Major contributors to earlier version could be listed, though.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
If we list everyone, though, the list will get prohibitively long.
I'm not so sure it would get that long, the CREDITS file is split into several sections; developers will generally stay the same, only a few being added occasionally, and there aren't that many patch contributors.
MinuteElectron.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thomas Dalton wrote: |> All users who contributed to a previous version will have effectively |> contributed to any version after that, since there contributions will |> still be in the code base. It seams unfair to remove people simply |> because they did not contribute specifically to the very latest version, |> even if there changes are still in use and enjoyed by the users. | | If we list everyone, though, the list will get prohibitively long. | Major contributors to earlier version could be listed, though.
What's prohibitive about a long list of names in a text file?
- -- brion
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
What's prohibitive about a long list of names in a text file?
For one thing, it doesn't distinguish between who's being working on the latest releases and who hasn't committed anything since 2003, which can be a useful thing to know.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
What's prohibitive about a long list of names in a text file?
For one thing, it doesn't distinguish between who's being working on the latest releases and who hasn't committed anything since 2003, which can be a useful thing to know.
Although actually, this doesn't precisely address your point, it's still something I think is worthwhile to consider in general here.
hi, there,
I can't download dump from http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/. everytime i tried to download directly, system said "download completed with 693 bytes in 1 second", the file i want to is more than 5gb!
Anyone can help me? thanks! zeyi
zh509 wrote:
hi, there,
I can't download dump from http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/. everytime i tried to download directly, system said "download completed with 693 bytes in 1 second", the file i want to is more than 5gb!
Anyone can help me? thanks! zeyi
I downloaded today many GB from download.wikimedia.org without problems (but waiting quite a lot longer than 1 sec :) ).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Simetrical wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
What's prohibitive about a long list of names in a text file?
For one thing, it doesn't distinguish between who's being working on the latest releases and who hasn't committed anything since 2003, which can be a useful thing to know.
Well, you could extract such a list from RELEASE-NOTES. :)
It still gives warm, fuzzy feelings to have everyone on an equal footing in a CREDITS file. I guess that's the open-source commie hippie in me.
- -- brion
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, you could extract such a list from RELEASE-NOTES. :)
. . . how? That doesn't say anywhere who contributed to the version. In fact, my initial proposal was nothing more than that we should *add* such a list to RELEASE-NOTES.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Simetrical wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, you could extract such a list from RELEASE-NOTES. :)
. . . how? That doesn't say anywhere who contributed to the version.
It should.
In fact, my initial proposal was nothing more than that we should *add* such a list to RELEASE-NOTES.
Yep!
- -- brion
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Simetrical wrote:
. . . how? That doesn't say anywhere who contributed to the version.
It should.
So we're doing that too?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Simetrical wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Simetrical wrote:
. . . how? That doesn't say anywhere who contributed to the version.
It should.
So we're doing that too?
We should be, as it's a good suggestion.
- -- brion
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Simetrical wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Simetrical wrote:
. . . how? That doesn't say anywhere who contributed to the version.
It should.
So we're doing that too?
We should be, as it's a good suggestion.
Couldn't we get that list from SVN changes to RELEASE-NOTES? That would give an additional incentive to update the thing when you change something noteworthy.
Magnus
Hoi, We are talking about a text file that only lists names .... My question to you, how much does it cost in size to include 1000 people? How much does it cost to reduce this list in time and effort to bring it down by a few hundred.. Where is the profit in doing this? Are you volunteering to do this work that you feel needs doing ?? Thanks, Gerard
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
All users who contributed to a previous version will have effectively contributed to any version after that, since there contributions will still be in the code base. It seams unfair to remove people simply because they did not contribute specifically to the very latest version, even if there changes are still in use and enjoyed by the users.
If we list everyone, though, the list will get prohibitively long. Major contributors to earlier version could be listed, though.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
When making CREDITS, I specified at the top that it's for 1.14. I figured that since the pool of developers changes over time (people come and go, it's natural), it's best to list who contributed to _that_ version. Once branched, the CREDITS file will remain the same for that version, and a new one will be started.
This is why I suggested that we use RELEASE-NOTES: old RELEASE-NOTES are already copied into HISTORY. That way, all previous developers (who did contribute to the new version too, via the old one) will be credited as well.
Simetrical wrote:
Well, with the release notes freshly trimmed for 1.14, it seems like a good time to bring this up. A while back, someone or other removed references in specific RELEASE-NOTES features to who submitted the patch to fix the feature. Brion reverted that, calling it bad form. The thing is, though, that's exactly the policy we follow for everyone who contributes to the project: there's no mention in the release notes. The only way you could find out who actually develops MediaWiki at present is by hunting through commit logs and trying to match up names with commit aliases somehow. Special:Version is very incomplete, and most of the people listed aren't currently active.
A lot of projects mention who contributed to specific versions, and I think it would be perfectly reasonable for us to do the same. I would suggest two sections of contributors: people who contributed code to the specific version, and people who contributed translations. Each one could be ordered alphabetically by last name, or some other criterion if people think of one. (Like putting Brion and Tim at top, and maybe putting regular committers above one-time patch submitters.) If someone contributes a patch via Bugzilla or whatever, they get added to the list like anyone who personally committed code, not inline with the feature they added.
What does everyone think?
Perhaps an AUTHORS or CONTRIBUTORS text file would be nice, I've seen it done in various other pieces of open source software. Listing all the names there would be good, and probably help with regards to attribution and GPL compliance. Having it in a separate file in a common format (as opposed to strewn about RELEASE-NOTES) would mean that it could be parsed if someone wanted to do so (right now it is difficult to get a comprehensive list of contributors without going through each of the files and scanning for @author tags - even that isn't complete). It could also remove duplication.
MinuteElectron.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org