Distinguish between repos we maintain vs. contribute to?

[carstenkind]

From @tknerr on January 20, 2016 21:40

Should we draw a clear line here?

I think zuehlke repos and private repos of z employees where we are in a "maintainer role" can be easily put together.

But: as soon as we add other people's repos where we "only contributed to" we should be careful to not sell it as our own work (at least not without prior asking for consent).

For that matter I think we need a way to distinguish between repos we "maintain" and repos we "contribute" to (a visual clue and ability to filter at least)

Copied from original issue: Zuehlke/zuehlke.github.io-sources#8

[carstenkind]

From @tknerr on January 20, 2016 21:42

P.s. I remember an earlier prototype where we had "Repositories | People | Contributions" in the top menu. Maybe we should simply reactivate the Contributions entry there?

[carstenkind]

From @bruderol on January 21, 2016 12:34

I do not like the category "Repositories" at all ... From a Scenarioo point of view: Scenarioo is a Open Source Initiative that consists of 10 repositories or even more (the tooling, the documentation format, writer libraries for different languages, examples for different languages and ui testing technologies, etc. etc.), that is why I only linked our github page of scenarioo, and not all our repositories. that is why i consider the title "repositories" as suboptimal too, but also the category "contributions" would not fit our need, since it is an Open source initiative developed mainly by Zühlke. In any case, I think that it is important to describe in the descriprtion text of a repository or initiative what the concrete achievements or activities of Zühlke employees are in each repository/initiative.

[carstenkind]

Hmm, I don't like the distinction, because you find always border cases. To emphase your point @tknerr my original title of the site was "Zühlke Open Source Contributions" - not just "Zühlke Open Source". That was done later and misses the point in fact. @bruderol, I see your point. Do you have an idea? Maybe distinction between Open source projects and Repositories? Or do you need just another title?

[bruderol]

@carstenkind What about using a more general name like "Initiatives" or "Contributions" instead of "Repositories" and then describe each initiative in its text and mention what exactly the kind of contributions by Zühlke are (which might be different for each initiative anyway), similar to how I described it allready for Scenarioo ("Founded, driven and developed by a team of Zühlke engineers in collaboration with our customers and their needs.").

Important: Especially for those repositories that are not owned by Zühlke developers, where we only have small contributions, we should mention this in the description text!

I prefer this and having only one category with all the Zühlke open source initiatives and contributions (no matter how small our contribution is) listed on the same page (similar to how it is allready now), instead of having a different category/page for each special case, otherwise we end up with "Repository", "Contributions", "Innitiatives", etc. and the user does not know where to look for what he searches.

Also I would prefer instead of having two entries like "cookbook-windev" and "windev-example", to have only one link for each initiative, and then link from the initiative's main site (either a github-page, or simply from the main repository README.md) to all the relevant repositories of an initiative, like examples etc. similar as we do this for Scenarioo allready, where we have a github page and an organization with all Repositories for this initiative, but also just a README.md for a smaller initiative (like windev-cookbook) would of course perfectly do.

[carstenkind]

As I just wrote something about the title in another comment, I tend to prefer "contributions". Then we could leave the title short as it is completely clear, that we are just talking about contributions. "Initiatives" is misleading again, since this sounds like if Zühlke owns a central role.

[bruderol]

@carstenkind Yes, okay, agree, since everything is a contribution (whether a Zühlke owned repository or a small contribution to any project or a bigger initiative consisting of many repositories). "Contributions" fits for all entries, and we could (and should!) specifiy in each entry what the achievements/contributions in the listed project/repository/innitiative are (from "Zühlke-driven Open source innitiative" to "simple open source project developed by Zühlke" to "Open Source project we consider useful and use in our projects and allready provided small contributions or bug fixes for."). Important to explicitly mention this for each entry in its description.

[kabaehr]

We have no title anymore so this shall be fixed

[bruderol]

i disagree, this is still an issue, because the link is called "Repositories"

[bruderol]

since we mix single Zühlke-driven repositories, larger initiatives with many repositories (like Scenarioo, where we link to their github page) and also just repositories where Zühlke people contributed too (but where the repositories do not belong to us), the name should be something else, e.g. "Contributions", as proposed by Carsten and me.

[kabaehr]

Repositories are now renamend to contributions

[bruderol]

Thanks @kabaehr , great, can be closed now I think!

[kabaehr]

Yes, you´re right :)

[tknerr]

Thanks @kabaehr! :+1: