"About" box
|
View:
New views
8 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
"About" box
by cannam
::
Rate this Message:
We still have no About box, I think? Any takers to remedy that?
Could be a fun little project for someone not too deeply involved in coding at the moment. It could probably just be a single simple dialog showing an HTML text. It could include some or all of the following, and this is partly a call for your thoughts about where we should draw the line (e.g. whether to shunt some credits to another tab, or where to start saying "see [web page] for more details"). * program logo and title * version number, release name, build key, perhaps Qt version * summary of program's purpose, web site link * general copyright note and dates * list of authors who have taken part in the Qt4 port (although it needs to be clear that these are not necessarily the long-standing primary authors, they're still the people who should be given first "active" credit for getting this particular release out) * translator(s) responsible for the translation into the language currently being read * list of primary authors (anyone who's contributed more than about a thousand lines?) * list of all authors * list of all translators We need to be fair, accurate, and with a suitable sense of celebration and thanks for the work involved in getting this release out (of course, if we never get the release out, nobody will care what the about box says anyway!) Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "About" box
by D. Michael McIntyre-3
::
Rate this Message:
On Saturday 04 July 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
> displayed, and to invite the user to see the website for more details > -- so long as the essentials are there. I don't mind if you'd prefer > to include everything possible either and tab it, though, just like > the classic version. I'd be happy to leave those judgements to you. We used to have a list of authors in the KAboutData, and another list of authors in the AUTHORS file and another list of authors on the website, plus whatever list we maintained for any specific release. We used to have a breakdown of a couple bullet points about who did what, and then as people grew beyond more than four bullet points, they became "primary authors" or whatever, but not "core developers." Neither "core developers" nor "primary authors" had bullet points. This was all hell to maintain, and mostly it languished, and what got done in one place was frequently not propagated throughout the entire credit system. Over the last several releases, I have been focusing less on the hard coded credit system, including the about box, and concentrating more on getting proper documentation for who did what in a particular release into that release's note. I think all of these have been constructed on or ported to the wiki, and they're readily obtainable from SourceForge or the list archives too. I've been working on extending the ideas that have guided the last few releases, and simplifying our entire credit system. The new system is based on the principle that the best way to avoid making anyone feel like they have been slighted more than anyone else is to slight everyone equally. This same principle is very evident in the decision we took some time back to change all the copyright notes to read: Copyright 2000-2009 the Rosegarden development team. See the AUTHORS file for more details. The way I see it, "the Rosegarden development team" for release n is best defined as the master historical list online (to credit everything that has come before) plus the release note (to credit the specific doings that went into that one particular release.) Now we have an AUTHORS file that points to the website: http://rosegardenmusic.com/resources/authors/ The authors page on the website starts with a festive retrospective look back at the project's origins, and mentions all the current and former core developers and the roles they played historically. It winds up with a flat list of everyone who has contributed anything of note to code, graphic design (eg. icons), documentation, or translation (all of which I consider "development" work). The list is in approximately chronological order, with the oldest contributors appearing at the top. In addition, we have the future release note at: http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/wiki/dev:9.x This note starts off with a special list of people who helped with the port, who deserve an extra measure of credit for working on that horrible monster of a job, as opposed to more routine contribution. To see how that sorts out, let's take the case of the new contributions from Immanuel Litzroth. He isn't there yet (see, maintenance problems even after simplification), but he needs to be tacked onto the bottom of the list on the authors page, and his place in the release note depends on what he does from here. The new Frontier Tranzport bit is not work on the port per se, even though it's a new feature done within this new codebase, so he's currently an "other people who contributed." If he untangles the bank manager (touch wood) then he shoots right up to fame and glory on the porting team itself. Of course that future release note is nothing more than a draft, but that's the general idea how it's supposed to work now. Having laid all of that out, I think we should DEFINITELY AVOID hard coding any of this in the about box. Have a couple of links, one to the master authors list, and another one to the current release note. We already have two lists to maintain, which basically means I already have two lists to maintain. Nobody else has kept up with any of this in quite a long time. About data is EVIL. Let's not go there. I do rather like the idea of having some blurb about "the translation you're using brought to you by..." but even that has limitations. Do I deserve credit for the entire Spanish translation, even though I've been maintaining it for the last few releases? Not really. Then take German. Thorsten has been busting his balls on THOUSANDS of strings, but what do we do five years after he disappears when some new guy translates 100 strings? It really is another example of where the only way to avoid slighting anyone more than everyone else is to slight everyone equally. The "historical blurb" is somewhat shaky ground in all of this, I admit. Where do we draw the line singling out the few who deserve really special mention? I'm on the list because I make the list baby, and you make the list because I have to put you on it or you'll actually use a smiley face in an email (which will cause a black hole to open up at the center of the earth), but beyond that it's really muddy. That's why I tried to more or less cut it all off somewhere after Heikki came on, as he is listed as a current admin. -- D. Michael McIntyre ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel |
|
|
Re: "About" box
by cannam
::
Rate this Message:
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:36 PM, D. Michael
McIntyre<rosegarden.trumpeter@...> wrote: > I'm on the list because I make the list baby, and you make the list > because I have to put you on it or you'll actually use a smiley face in an You mean me? I did try using a smiley once. It felt all wrong. That would have been about 15 years ago, and I'm afraid I no longer have a copy of the email. Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "About" box
by D. Michael McIntyre-3
::
Rate this Message:
On Monday 06 July 2009, Julie S wrote:
> void > RosegardenMainWindow::slotBugGuidelines() > { > ... > > Should I code the about Rosegarden box here as well? Write gui/dialogs/AboutBoxDialog or whatever and test it by hanging it off of RosegardenMainWindow::slotAbout() and we'll sort it out from there. I only have a vague idea how to do this without looking at code, but I'm not concerned about being able to figure this one out. Sorry to be so brief, but I'm out of time until much later tonight. -- D. Michael McIntyre ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel |
|
|
|
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
