Update Credits for 0.H -Harrowing #76910
Conversation
Update en.credits
github-actions
bot
added
json-styled
|
This is the commit range I used and if I've messed up anything inside of that or changing the range will be better I'm open to changes. :) |
github-actions
bot
added
the
BasicBuildPassed
|
I very strongly object to these. Night-Pryanik was right in the post above. The listed main developers did not contribute to 0.H in any significant manner, or even at all: They were all amazing contributors in the past but not in this release and giving them legacy credits is honestly deeply disrespectful to other contributors. There are some drive-by contributors (ex: lispcoc) that have done more for 0.H than all of the "main" developers put together. In addition, special thanks are entirely subjective and don't belong in the game. You can list your favorites in your blog post, or even the release announcement, as long as it's made clear that they are your special thanks rather than the project's. Instead of these, there should be just a link to the contributors list. |
|
I don't think KorGenT should be listed on the 0.H credits, they do literally have 0 contributions since 0.G. If we're adding the senior dev team into every version credit then e.g. mlangsdorf should be credited, and there's probably other names from before my time too. |
Are you perhaps mis-remembering the dates of their contributions? I thought most of their recent changes were post-0.H, but apparently not. The 0.H changes include NPC threat evaluation changes, Liam (but just the scenario, much of the unique dialogue did not make it), the nunez family (which is a bunch of content), and of course the entire ocean. I personally think the ocean is not that big a deal for a player, but it was a long standing desire for a lot of people and a lot of people were/are very excited about it. So I can see an argument going either way. Hopefully you can see an argument for their contributions being notable, even if you don't agree with the argument? |
I don't think those are significant, at least not enough to claim a leadership role. The content changes are isolated and most players won't see them. If you're only counting those, then Standing-Storm is the most
The ocean stuff is hardcoded in an era where we're working hard to unhardcode everything. Only the effect strength parameters are exposed to JSON and the entire thing is essentially only usable for DDA.
90% of that patch is debug messages... |
|
Okay, I have been baited into giving my opinions :). I probably should have been doing this in the first place, but writing these things always leads to hand wringing. @Kamayana Did amazingly important infrastructural work in the entire 0.G-0.H period, including cables and all the little bits to make them work. They also did two very important bugfixes which were backported, #73055 and #71889. I think they should make the credits. BrettDong, jbytheway, akrieger, ralreegorganon, dseguin, Night-Pryanik, and gkarfakis19 are all contributors I'd personally not have named if I was writing the credits. This isn't intended as a slight to any of these persons, just a (hopefully) even-handed consideration of what makes it into the credits. BrettDong - A relatively limited amount of merges in the 0.G-->0.H period. Although much of their work was infrastructure related, their contributions in this period are mostly clang-squashing and fixing build errors. jbytheway - A definitely limited amount of merges in the 0.G-->0.H period. Although they had a few larger ones for infrastructure, I can't judge any of these as being very important. Again, this is just my personal opinion, and I'm maybe not the best qualified! akrieger - If I was going to credit them I would definitely refer to their infrastructure work in general, not their performance optimizations. ralreegorganon - Just doesn't make the cutoff. Not much more to say here. I don't think removing them from the specific credits should be very controversial. dseguin - Contributions-wise, I love them. JSONifying damage types was huge, but their total pool doesn't make the list. Depending on how you view merging, I could see it going either way. Night-Pryanik - Limited CDDA contributions in the 0.G-->0.H period. No offense, my personal opinion 😅 gkarfakis19 - Just doesn't make the cutoff. |
|
Also I don't think I my credit in 0.H should mention camps, while I did some , all the things I consider to be very important happened after the 0.H cut-off. In particular tracking vitamins, the food fed to workers not disappearing, all the prep work for NPC camps, the actual NPC camps, and recently using camps as faction zones all came after 0.H's divergence. |
None taken. I'm still on the list mostly because of my contributions for 0.G. I'm fine with me being removed from the credits for 0.H, since I was on a long hiatus for that period and indeed my contributions were sparse. |
|
Depending where the "cutoff" is drawn PatrikLundell should be considered, they did a large amount of mind numbing convoluted stuff that noone else would've touched. I don't really see that there's any way to do this purely objectively without using one of the garbage metrics like commit and line count which are pretty useless when it comes to how impactful their changes are to the version. Can we please at least alphabetise the list though so it doesn't look like it's in a meaningful order. |
Co-authored-by: David Seguin <[email protected]>
|
Cool deal :) I've got family time and work all day today so it'll likely be a day or two before I can get back at this with any changes suggested. Please feel free to continue with the opinions in here I'd much rather feel like this isn't something done half assed because no one else wanted to touch it. |
I'm not opposed to removing them but when you say 0 contributions I'm hearing that you are using a different date range than I have above. I posted the date range so people could come up with a better range because mine might be wrong. I need you to give me the correct range if this is incorrect. It's also cool if zero contributions was hyperbole but in this instance hyperbole is less than helpful to getting to corrections. I'm removing Korg at his own request but I am serious in that if you are showing a different commit range as 0.H I'd like to look at it and see why it's chosen.
|
I posted the ranges I checked above. I had misspelled KorGgenT's name so they showed up with 0 instead of 5. My bad... And I looked at PRs instead of commits. Commit discipline varies wildly and there's no consistency when squash-merging either so commit numbers can be deceptive. If you still want to look at commit numbers though, git can give us that information more easily than Github git shortlog -n --since=2023-03-01 --until=2024-01-30 --no-merges --summary 0.H-branchI still maintain that there should be no credits in game, other than a link to the list of contributors. |
Co-authored-by: Binrui Dong <[email protected]>
Update en.credits
Summary
None
Purpose of change
Update the credits for 0.H, so far unnamed.
Describe the solution
Here's my first draft at some thoughts. Easily adjusted at this point.
Describe alternatives you've considered
None
Testing
This is the test, and I shall remain Maleclypse and pass into chaos.
Additional context