Repository navigation
Reorder authors in README.md #1972
Description
Activity
Anything that makes it easier to simply copy and paste for
Reviewed-By:lines 😀function revline() { git log | grep -i --color=never reviewed.+$1 | head -1 | xargs | tee >(pbcopy) }
Needs a second terminal, but I'm sure there's a way to integrate this into vim too.
@silverwind It's actually usually easier/faster for me to grab it from the readme. I'm not always at a machine with git and such installed.
How about this format? (Would have put the real name in parens, but that would kill copiability)
- @user Real Name <mail@address.com> [TC]
@mscdex how do you merge witout git installed? 😯
@silverwind I suppose that format is ok.
I'm ok with that too.
And of course, sort by username.
I am only sort of kidding here, but maybe we should sort by sha1 hash of collaborator line? I'd like to encourage folks to spell their names using whatever orthography they would naturally use, and sha1 gets us away from having to figure out how to sort multiple orthographies.
Edit: as @silverwind suggests, sorting by username would also work and involve far less hashing :)
Needs a second terminal, but I'm sure there's a way to integrate this into vim too.
You should be able to just do
:!revline(I think.) If not, turning it into a tiny shell script on $PATH would work.@rvagg suggested that we should reorder authors to remove any significance to their wg membership, such as when they joined or if they are part of the TC.
Was any motivation given?
@piscisaureus here's the full quote from the PR:
I've been thinking that maybe putting them in full alphabetical order would be best, TC members included, it decreases the importance of the TC slightly which I think is appropriate for how this project actually works.
Thoughts anyone?
Don't fully agree with that sentiment. While all collaborators are equals in terms of signing off a PR, the TSC is the team that has the absolute final say when something is controversial. So I believe that list of names should be at the top, not to show superiority but instead to make it easier for anyone to find their information.
Counter-suggestion: two groups of alphabetically sorted collaborators, those behind the security@ email, then those who aren't. (catering to both users searching for a contact & collaborators looking for reviewed-by emails)
@brendanashworth isn't all security email supposed to land in security@ anyway? (point being, we don't want people to be confused about where to send security related stuff)
@jbergstroem it should, but if someone is confused they may look down to the collaborator list and pick the first one they see. Probably not, but its just an idea.
- added a commit that references this issue
on Sep 3, 2015 - added a commit that references this issue
on Sep 3, 2015 - added a commit that references this issue
on Sep 3, 2015
(brought up in #1966, moved to its own place)
@rvagg suggested that we should reorder authors to remove any significance to their wg membership, such as when they joined or if they are part of the TC.
Lets agree on how this should be ordered. So far, last name or github username seems to be the two options. I like the idea of using the github username (and subsequently moving that ahead of name/email).