Re: possibly exhausted ftp-masters (Re: Do we still value contributions?
On December 28, 2019 2:30:54 PM UTC, Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 11:31am +01, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> I ceertainly agree that our copyright files should be
>machine-readable
>> in _addition_ to being human-readable, not instead.
>>
>> I believe our current machine-readable format is expressive enough to
>> also be decently human-readable.
>>
>> Please help challenge me on that: Provide me examples of packages
>> considered unsuitable for use with our machine-readable format
>because
>> that would make them too human-unreadable. I would like to have a
>> closer look at such cases.
>
>It's not usually that they are unreadable, but that they are less
>readable. I'm afraid I don't have examples to hand.
>
>For packages with simple copyright and licensing, machine readable
>copyright files can take longer to write than a freeform copyright
>file.
>
>For packages with simple copyright and licensing, there are useful
>things you can do with a freeform copyright file which you can't do
>with
>a machine-readable file. See for example the contribution information
>in the copyright files of src:dgit and src:mailscripts.
Also, please consider the impact on new contributors. This list of somewhat arcane policies and procedures that new contributors need to learn us already long. Adding to it raises barriers to contributing.
I don't think there's anything important enough about machine readable copyright that we should tell people that they are to ignorant to contribute a new package unless they learn it.
Scott K
Reply to: