docs(site): add agmsg-bubblelog and agmsg-tui to the showcase and README - #571
Merged
Conversation
The README listed three derivative projects the site showcase never carried, so the two lists disagreed about what agmsg is built with. They now name the same five, with agmsg-bubblelog and agmsg-tui joining the three already on the site. Dropping the older three is a curation call, not a judgement on them; they are live and can come back if their authors want that. bubblelog reuses a frame of the demo GIF the repository publishes (MIT), cropped to the card ratio rather than letterboxed — the source is portrait, so a plain crop would have shown a band of it. The frame is one that states on screen that it is demo data. agmsg-tui has no screenshot yet, so it uses its GitHub social card, the same treatment agkanban already gets, until the author supplies one. Its blurb stays inside what the repository itself claims, since nobody here has run it. bubblelog is described by what the demo shows — replay and per-agent avatars — because the existing viewer entry already had the messenger-style ground. Star counts refreshed to the live numbers, and the contributor list picks up those whose work has actually landed on main.
Native-checked copy for the eight non-English locales, written per language rather than translated from a draft, matching the existing entries in voice. Three constraints held across all of them: bubblelog keeps replay and per-agent avatars as what separates it from the viewer entry, which already holds the messenger-style ground; agmsg-tui gains no capability or praise the repository does not claim, since nobody here has run it; ratatui stays as written.
The two new images are copies of third-party material — a frame of an MIT-licensed demo GIF, and a GitHub-generated social card — and their provenance lived only in a pull request body. MIT asks for its notice to travel with the copy, and a pull request does not travel with a clone or with the built site. The file states, per image, the upstream repository, the licence and its holder where one applies, the source asset, and exactly what was done to it. The social card is marked as what it is: generated by GitHub rather than part of the repository, so the project licence is not what governs it, and a placeholder until its author offers a real capture. The three older images are listed as unrecorded rather than folded in, since assuming they arrived the same way would put a claim in the tree that nobody has checked.
Two rights problems in the provenance file, both found in review. MIT asks for the copyright notice AND the permission notice to travel with a copy. The file named the licence and then claimed that naming it satisfied the condition, which it does not. The upstream licence now sits beside the image verbatim, and the wording says which of the two is doing the work. The agmsg-tui card had no grant behind it at all. Ruling out the repository licence was right — GitHub generates the card rather than shipping it — but that left nothing in its place, and being served publicly is not permission to save a copy and redistribute it from our own site. It is removed. The entry stays, without an image: the showcase card now renders a plain repository name when none is supplied, so a listing no longer depends on having a picture we may not be entitled to use. An image goes back when its author offers one.
The card is generated by GitHub so other sites can show it when linking to the repository, and a showcase entry pointing at that repository is that use. Removing it read the absence of a source licence as an absence of any basis; the basis is what the card is produced for. Owner decision. The optional-image path stays. It was added to unblock this entry, but it holds on its own — a listing should not depend on having a picture — and a future entry without one now renders instead of breaking. The bubblelog licence file also stays. That one is unrelated: we ship a derivative of someone else`s MIT asset, and MIT asks for its notice to travel with the copy.
It shipped with the site, so it published claims about ourselves that were not true: that three existing images had no recorded origin, and that a GitHub card could not be used. The first reads as a defect notice for something nobody had questioned; the second contradicts the decision that the card is used as generated. The licence file stays. It is not documentation about us — it is the notice MIT requires to travel with the bubblelog derivative we ship.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adds
agmsg-bubblelogandagmsg-tuito the site showcase and brings the README's project list in line with it.Why both files change
The README listed three derivative projects the showcase never carried, so the two disagreed about what people had built on agmsg. They now name the same five. Dropping the older three (
agmsg-shogi,agmsg-go,agmsg-mcp) is a curation decision about keeping one list, not a judgement on them — all three are live repositories, and they can return if their authors want that.Images, and one that is deliberately absent
agmsg-bubblelog.pngis a frame of the demo GIF the repository publishes, cropped to the card's 16:9. The source GIF is portrait (1066x1162), soobject-coverwould have shown a horizontal band of it; 1066x600 is exactly 16:9 and keeps the header and first exchanges legible. The frame chosen is one where the app says on screen that it is replaying demo data rather than real history. The upstream MIT licence is reproduced verbatim next to the image asagmsg-bubblelog.LICENSE.txt, because MIT asks for the permission notice itself to travel with a copy — naming the licence is not the same as including it.agmsg-tui.pngis the repository's GitHub social card, saved as served. GitHub generates that card so other sites can show it when linking to the repository, which is what a showcase entry pointing at that repository does. It is a placeholder — the project is a terminal client and deserves a real capture, which should come from its author.The showcase card now renders without an image when none is supplied, showing a plain repository name in the same 16:9 frame. That was added while this entry had no image and is kept: a listing should not depend on having a picture.
Descriptions
The bubblelog blurb had to earn its distance from the existing
agmsg-viewerentry, which already occupies the messenger-style ground; it is described by what the demo shows — replay of a log, per-agent avatars. The agmsg-tui blurb stays inside what the repository itself claims (ratatui; SSH, mosh, tmux), because nobody here has run it.All eight non-English locales were written per language rather than translated from a draft, and native-checked, keeping both constraints above.
Also in here
Star counts refreshed to live numbers — the build-time values had drifted (agkanban 9→12, agmsg-office 5→15, agmsg-viewer 1→3; the client-side refresh is unchanged). The external contributor list picks up those whose work has landed on
main: @Masashi-Ono0611, @chemica-tan, @otsune, @tsukimiya. Only landed contributions are listed, which is why it was checked against commit authorship onmainrather than merged-PR counts — two of those four had their PRs closed in favour of in-house re-lands.Verification
npm run build— 9 pages, complete. Both new entries and their descriptions appear indist/index.htmlanddist/ja/index.html; each locale renders its own text (spot-checked ja, de, zh-CN). Every locale file plusutils.jsimported with node to check syntax. No reference to the withdrawn image remains in the tree or the build.Not verified: how the cards look in a real browser. The build output shows the markup, not the rendering.