discussion: misleading contributions

[BenjaSanchez]

As discussed with @dcsoto, there's a small issue with having all of the rootstock history in this repo, as the "Contributors" panel of the repo looks misleading (most of those people have not contributed to this manuscript). We could squash all old commits up to ce827c7 in a single commit, however I realized this has a big drawback: doing so would conflict this repo with rootstock, so we would not be able to pull changes from them in the future to include their latest features.

@dcsoto should we then squash? How about instead offering a file that self records the contributions by number of words written, in a similar style than figure 2 of the manubot publication? There are tools out there like Perceval that can do this automatically already, so we could even add it to the CI cycle (at the deployment stage) as a file recorded in the output branch. I could also open an issue over at https://github.com/manubot/rootstock to ask if this is a feature they have considered adding.

[dcsoto]

Good point. Are we really concern with getting their latest features tho? I feel the tool works fine as it is for our current needs. However, I do like the idea of Perceval, using it to define the order of contributors sounds good to me :)

Yay to opening an issue in the manubot/rootstock repo

Would you like to work setting up Perceval?

[BenjaSanchez]

update: offline it was decided with @dcsoto to leave the repo how it is for now, and only once we start sharing with more people the final version we will squash the past :)