Developers of Sympa

[David Verdin <address@concealed>]

Hi Guillaume,

Étienne and I are quite found of this version. Call us lazy, but we think we'll be more inclined to keep the pod up to date if it is just at the top of the function.
But there are four of us. Let Soji give his advice about the question.

By the way, Marc Chantreux asked me whether he could have his own branch to work on Sympa. I'm sure happy to see him work on Sympa as he seems to be a very skilled perl developper. However, I told him to wait a little, until the trunk has received the merge of Guillaume's work.
He seems to have pretty solid ideas about how to code in perl. I wonder whether we should invite him to our ongoing debate about coding standards?

Something else. In order to officialize your contribution to the project, I modified the Authors page of the Sympa web site: https://www.sympa.org/users/authors

I wanted to make it clear that you are as much authors as the RENATER team is, even though we still host the project and are considered responsible of the quality of the code released.
That means you definitely have your say on how and when Sympa must evolve.
Even though I like the way we all tend to suggest instead of demand. :)

And that's about it...

cheers,

David

Le 20/11/12 19:29, Guillaume Rousse a écrit :

address@concealed">Le 19/11/2012 18:01, Guillaume Rousse a écrit :

I have a personal preference for the second format, but I'll happily
revert to the first one if there is a no consensus here :)

To make my explanations about pro/cons of both usage a bit more explicit, I just finished to reformat Sympa::OAuth::* and Sympa::VOOT::* modules using in-place documentation.

Feel free to make your mind, and give me your preferences.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: Signature cryptographique S/MIME