[rfc-i] GitHub references
tse at ribose.com
Thu Mar 8 15:09:03 PST 2018
I fully agree with Brian that there should be a title if it exists; without a title it feels just like a footnote instead of a reference. To me something less “title-ish” is better than “title-less”.
Of course it is up to the owner of the repo to provide a proper “title", but hopefully if this practice takes up people will start giving titles…
On Mar 9, 2018, at 6:38 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>> wrote:
On 09/03/2018 11:31, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
On 3/8/18 2:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 09/03/2018 10:58, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On 8 Mar 2018, at 17:54, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
Where do you see the full title? Is it in a location consistent from
repository to the next?
This is a problem with GitHub: the "title" of a repo can change easily
over time. Having said that, it might be OK to use the title at the time
of publication. Humorously, for mping, right now that is empty.
And that is not something the RFC Editor can fix. However, I think that
the rule should be: use the repo's title if there is one. For example,
https://github.com/becarpenter/graspy has a title that would suffice, IMNSHO.
I'm still unclear on what and where the title is that you're referring
to. Are we talking about what ever is in the area that on mping says
"/No description, website, or topics provided." /and on graspy says
"Python 3 demo code for GRASP protocol"? If that's it, that's a bit
concerning since the text might not be very title-ish at all.
That's it, and you're right, there is no quality control on that paricular
aspect of GitHub. (That was a joke. There's no QC on any aspect of GitHub
Don't you think the authors should be expected to provide a suitable
text string? I don't think we can get this right by defining an algorithm,
and with no title at all, the references look very thin.
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest