[MPlayer-cvslog] CVS: main AUTHORS,1.176,1.177

Ivan Kalvachev ikalvachev at gmail.com
Mon Apr 10 20:57:36 CEST 2006

2006/4/10, Jan Knutar <jknutar at nic.fi>:
> On Monday 10 April 2006 19:47, Rich Felker wrote:
> > Considering the family (and especially the MALE PARENT'S FAMILY) as
> > more relevant/important than the given name of the person.
> This flamewar would become more interesting if there were some icelandic
> developers aboard ;) There people are named <given name> <given name of
> father/mother>+son/daughter. :) A Nordic legacy which is still dominating in
> Iceland, and also visible in more modern names, such as the fairly common
> "eriksson".
> Male parent's family doesn't necessarily hold true anymore in west either.

Nice point, i guess we will rip the name app art leaving a hole in it...

2006/4/10, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal.cx>:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:18:06AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> > Now that I come back to this again, I notice that there are actually two
> > separate issues involved: which name you sort on first, and which name
> > you actually list first. In the former case, I stand very strongly
> > behind giving the surname priority over the personal name; in the latter
> > case, I have no strong preference one way or the other.
> Why do you stand strongly behind this? It has absolutely no usefulness
> to us. It only makes it MORE DIFFICULT to find the name you want since
> you can't just scroll thru. You have to use the / key and explicitly
> search! Unless you know people by their family names, which is
> nonsense...

Actually this is the reason I would like family name to don't be first.
You actually cannot use search for the whole name unless you know what
part IS the family name and what is the rest. You however also must
give the coma as search criteria...
So, instead of making search easier it makes it harder.

I do think that this anachronism could have been useful in the days of
manual search but it is more troublesome today.

> > >The primary reason behind the 'rule' you talk about is pure
> > >patriarchialism. Nothing more. And it's lame.
> >
> > ...I fail utterly to see how "patriarchalism" has anything to do with
> > it. Provincialism, maybe, but...
> Considering the family (and especially the MALE PARENT'S FAMILY) as
> more relevant/important than the given name of the person.
> Trying to group people in a listing by family.

Yes, that's why I was talking about family relation.

However, I just took a look of linux MAINTAINERS file, people there
seem to be listed in normal order . Their names are listed in the form
it is used in the mail.
As our primary communications are though mail I see much sense in it.

More information about the MPlayer-cvslog mailing list