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

[The Wanderer]

Ivan Kalvachev wrote:

> 2006/4/10, Jan Knutar <jknutar at nic.fi>:

> 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.

On the point of "which comes first on the line, the personal name or the
surname?" (which both the place where they get switched, which seems to
be what you were objecting to, and the place where the comma is
introduced) I am willing to be go along with either way; I have no
strong preference or objection for either order, other than perhaps "the
order in which they are used when speaking". (This may not be consistent
with what I've said previously in this thread, but if so that's because
I hadn't gotten the entire matter thought through properly.)

On the point of "which name do we sort on?", as I said before, I *do*
have strong preferences. Do you - have problems with the principle of
sorting on surname, or were you just complaining about seeing the listed
name in the wrong order on its line?

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

Manual search has not entirely gone away - indeed, Rich just cited it as
a reason to not sort name lists by surname. (I would cite it as a reason
*to* sort name lists by surname, but that's another matter.)

>>> ...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.

Ah. That makes a little more sense now.

> 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.

At the very least, these two files should probably be made consistent in
this respect - regardless of which one is changed to match the other.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.