Hello, On Wednesday 22 January 2014 12:27:29 Alex Merry wrote: > On 22/01/14 06:33, Kevin Ottens wrote: > > On Tuesday 21 January 2014 17:18:36 Alex Merry wrote: > >> Traditionally, the front pages of our apidox has included a list of > >> authors, the maintainer(s) and the license. This is obviously > >> duplicating/summarising information stored elsewhere, and is easy to let > >> get out of date. > > > > Yes... definitely easy to get wrong. We should have only one place for > > that.> > >> Do we still want this information? It would probably mean adding it to > >> the README.md files. > > > > Are we ditching the LICENSE and AUTHORS files which used to contain this > > type of information? I'm not sure we want everything in README.md. > > Well, this is kind of what I mean about duplicating the information. > Although the canonical authorship info is the copyright headers and/or > git log. > > My personal view is that authors generally shouldn't be in the apidox > main page anyway, as it's not massively useful to users of the dox.
Agreed. > Authors on individual classes is more useful and more likely to be accurate. Not sure I agree there... the amount of class level author info we had in kdelibs which was outdated look large to me. > Having the maintain there is a possibility, or we could just add a link > to the frameworks list with the canonical info to the Links section. We have indeed to choose which one will be canonical: the wiki page or some bit in the repository. I don't mind either way, depends what maintainers prefer to edit really. > License is potentially useful. Currently the docs do > @licenses > @lgpl > which gives something approximating the markdown > ### License(s): > [LGPLv2](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html#SEC1) > > This is somewhat more succinct than the content of LICENSE tends to be > (where that file is even given; we currently don't bother with it if the > code is GPL or LGPL; in that case, we have COPYING or COPYING.LIB, > containing the full text of the license, instead). > > I would be tempted to ditch the current LICENSE files (all three of > them), and add (summary) license info to README.md, as > > > ## License > > > > This framework is licensed under the > > [LGPLv2](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html#SEC1) > > or > > > ## License > > > > This framework is licensed under the @lgpl > > (the latter depends on a doxygen command defined by kapidox). We would > (have to) keep COPYING and COPYING.LIB regardless. We might want to add > in a second sentence saying that the CMake code is licensed as BSD. I like that. > Currently there are a bunch of COPYING-CMAKE-SCRIPTS files around where > frameworks ship Find*.cmake modules, which I'm not so keen on > (especially as the BSD license text makes little sense unless it has a > copyright notice above it). Agreed. Cheers. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
