Re: Starting a GNU Guile awesome list

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

Zelphir Kaltstahl <zelphirkaltstahl@posteo.de> wrote:
> I ‹…› started creating an awesome list
> https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl/awesome-guile

+1!

However, even if you are not going to apply for inclusion¹ in meta-list 
<https://awesome.re> and therefore are free from complying with all rules that 
might come to the mind of a macboy in state of administrative ecstasy²; calling 
your list ‘an awesome list’ implies a certain format nonetheless.

And that format actually answers two of the there of your questions.

-
¹ In any case, I am not sure, whether they accept lists with the primary 
repository outside of github.com at all.

² E. g., recently he had broken local clones and invalidated all the 
pull-request backlog by renaming ‘master’ branch to ‘main’, and now require all 
the lists to follow his example.


> * Do you think each item should have a short description or not?

Thatʼs the key feature of ‘awesome lists’, number one in the ‘manifesto’ [1]:

| Comment on why something is awesome
|
| Apart from suggesting a particular item on your list, you should also inform 
your readers why it's on the list and how they will benefit from it.

[1] https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/blob/main/awesome.md


> * Do you think the rendered readme.md should be handwritten instead of 
> exported from org-mode?

Again, ‘awesome list’ format implies [2] Markdown as a source format.  Nobody 
says, though, that a source is something handtyped.

[2] https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/blob/main/pull_request_template.md

> (Perhaps I should not ask this question …  the amount of markdown typing … my 
> fingers hurt.)

???  The only thing where org-mode saves typing over markdown-mode is ToC 
generation.  But there are lots ToC helpers for Markdown!  (describe-package 
'markdown-toc), for instance.

In the case you will stick with Org, there at least should be a runnable build 
recipe (i. e. a Makefile).


> * Do you think license information should be written next to each item in the 
> list?

First at foremost, the list _itself_ has to be licensed as a free 
documentation.  FWIW, most of ‘awesome lists’ are under CC0.


> * Do you think license information should be written next to each item in the 
> list?

Anyway, imho, yes, it should.  This is an information with the highest 
usefulness/length ratio.  Perhaps, only maintained-or-abandoned bit could 
contend for it.

Actually, you might eventually find out useful to list something, because it 
has not a technical, but exactly a licensing advantage to another item.

For instance, the above-mentioned GNU G-Golf have a advantage over Guile GI as 
it does not follow a bad licensing practice of distributing a glue between a 
library under license A and a language under license B under terms of the third 
license C.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature