Skip to content

Add licensing, source location, and GitHub handle information to properties #87

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
mingness opened this issue May 7, 2025 · 5 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@mingness
Copy link
Collaborator

mingness commented May 7, 2025

Describe the feature or enhancement

As suggested in processing/processing-contributions#67, we could add an additional property for the library's license, suggesting the same license that Processing uses, LGPL v2.1.

Additionally, we could add optional properties for the repository URL and GitHub username(s) of the author(s) to release.properties.

Example

# (Optional) A URL to the source repository for your Library (e.g., https://github.com/yourUser/yourLibrary).
repositoryUrl=

# (Optional) A comma-separated list of GitHub usernames for the maintainers (e.g., maintainer1, maintainer2)
githubUsernames=

# (Optional) The SPDX identifier (see https://spdx.org/licenses/) for the license of your Library (e.g., LGPL-2.1-or-later)
licenseSpdx=

What is the use case?

Adding license information would allow us to provide users with clear information about the licensing terms of libraries, tools, and modes available in the Contribution Manager.

Adding repository and GitHub usernames would make it easier to contact authors if a library becomes broken or outdated, and allow for listing multiple maintainers properly.

Alternatives considered

No response

@mingness mingness added the enhancement New feature or request label May 7, 2025
@SableRaf SableRaf changed the title add licensing information to properties Add licensing, source location, and GitHub handle information to properties May 8, 2025
@SableRaf
Copy link
Collaborator

SableRaf commented May 8, 2025

@mingness I've updated the issue above to reflect our conversation in processing/processing-contributions#70

Let me know what you think!

@hamoid
Copy link

hamoid commented May 8, 2025

Is it possible to not assume GitHub is used? It's not the only platform for hosting git repos. I guess currently the automation is designed for GitHub, right? In that case I guess a GitHub user is probably a must. I was just thinking that it would be nice to allow alternatives.

@SableRaf
Copy link
Collaborator

SableRaf commented May 8, 2025

Hey @hamoid, thanks for raising that.

Right now I have to manually track people down when their library breaks or disappears. The idea behind collecting GitHub usernames (as an optional field) is to make that easier in the future if we want to ping maintainers. Since we are managing contributions on this GitHub repository, usernames felt like useful information to ask for, but you're right that it assumes GitHub. We could clarify in the comments what this information will be used for, and offer the option to include an email address.

How about revising this section like so:

# If your library becomes broken, outdated, or unavailable, this information helps
# us reach out to you. Providing a GitHub username or email address is optional,
# but strongly encouraged to make maintenance easier in the future.
#
# Note: This information will be publicly visible on the processing-contributions
# repository
#
# (We will only use this information to contact you about issues related to your library.)

# (Optional) Comma-separated list of maintainer GitHub usernames.
githubUsernames=

# (Optional) Contact email address
maintainerEmail=

Let me know what you think.

@hamoid
Copy link

hamoid commented May 8, 2025

Not sure how to name it, but if it was something like gitUserURL, it would allow for https://gitlab.com/myUser or https://codeberg.org/myUser (although I don't know how would one actually contact the person... opening an issue in a random repo of theirs? 😅).

Asking for an e-mail sounds good. It would be nice if the list was not scrapable by bots.

@mingness
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mingness commented May 8, 2025 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants