[RFC] (partial) patch to clean up authors.ent / developers.ent duplication

[René Ladan]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28-11-2012 01:00, Glen Barber wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> [Disclaimer:  I have not yet looked at the patch.]
> 
Most of it is mechanical.

> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:03:41PM +0100, René Ladan wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> we currently have two files in our documentation tree for
>> committer entries (i.e., &a.committer-name; ):
>> share/xml/authors.ent and share/xml/developers.ent, as indicated
>> at [1]. Worse, in authors.ent the entities have an email address
>> included hile in developers.ent they do not. I have a (partial)
>> patch at [2] to merge these two files and unify the meaning of
>> these entities. Currently it:
>> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> All of your proposed changes sound very good to me.
> 
>> Questions: - Maybe this should go in a branch first (especially
>> when it is decided to include the translations)?
> 
> My (personal) preference would be to do this in a project branch.
> Then we can worry about what to do about translated documents,
> contingent on if untouched translations contribute to build
> breakages.
> 
OK, I'll see if I can split the patch into more manageable smaller
commits.

>> - There is no ds@ , although the current documentation somewhat
>> suggests he has an account?
> 
> He has an email account, but not a login account (if I remember 
> correctly).  For his case, we can hard-code a ds@ email, if
> needed.
> 
I'll add him to authors.ent.

>> - The 2005 and 2006 editions of the Summer of Code pages include
>> email addresses, while the 2007 and 2008 versions do not?
>> 
> 
> Hmm..  No idea about this part.
> 
It could be just choice, but anyway now that email addresses will be
explicit it might be a good time to go through the articles and books
to see if we want email addresses in running text or just names.

> Thanks very much for starting this.
> 
> Unless there is objection from anyone, please feel free to create
> a projects branch for these changes.
> 
Which triggers some questions:
- - is projects/ open for normal committers?
- - what would be a suitable name? "entities" comes to mind, in which we
could also do a "FreeBSD" -> "&os;" sweep later.
- - since I do not have a full doc bit, do I need approval for every
commit to projects/ (and at some point the final merge) ?

René

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQtel1AAoJEK27+GEKN4m3yAUP/jYSv3BuMBHhHnaz3Q+2p45c
WSqexgUN7/arn0mRUyDTvmSUn2gGegAXNMwGo7qwWHcfweCHSvQC7YFa1QBIgYU/
pw6l2DgKuNEkPReNT/htNL4dWnj8RThb76YIPSkJQzQf6J2eIA2I7liQ5kv7mqAj
VuDy7iTB9fL2qDgYliHloiIzTAM4WOqy/cKL7jLd2tg4g1gmpuCCk8XXMhsBNeV4
le2BwpwsLeubPmUn0U5coNJUR1E1aArlZu++kbAC48hlTwk2K2hjYluHB/zQ1KqL
GhY003+E1ZTxXurAI3KgFCKlOTybhGtPcjoqtYqFW/PgRj4nmyxb1ADjrDuCeK/5
LWM86TBFttB7vAIZwU0+rcgCKdAASsUEJJn+9PjD1+5EwYGtYExouJsej6aCZHze
jZMlt6aqcm07J8Fzg+04duxmwKxE3gH2TmiSvW5SMQyAv9Cx70t/EYLU+YFqPQ6n
Rgi3HPZo6cZWoy43p4G4N6CUXWdatB/O4ufKYQP1WdOuF80uY0D9nTUbdkT0oQuk
SBxR8YE0jLZtwAIs3/9hOEKsJ6qoesVpe8rn4VXHQFyjcGkEWearJxhnxB2JN3CS
MPotsm6GrVJm8HfRC+Oxic2jxt3RYst7s5fK1+GsCBc29+9eVgGSVhgYROUfT6wd
F0fVeDq6QWaEUjyC1LJg
=PAvd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----