File Repository

[neob]

yes first i also looked for the link in the profile page but it wasnt there this is why i suggested this feature
if a email link will be added i think its will be better to add to the specific pages since attaching the source page url to the sent text is trivial.

although on second thought, i haven't figured out exactly what should be done in case there is multiple owners, i guess profile email link is better then nothing.

[Jupix]

Whatever you guys want, pm, e-mail or profile link (all at the forums), it's going to require extra user input at registration which makes the feature unreliable. Some will fill it out correctly, but the rest will mistype it, abuse it or not enter anything. The repo will not have any way of validating this input, because I'm not authorized to access the tt-forums DB.

There's 2 options for what you would need to enter.

1) Your forum username. With this, I can implement a form which composes a PM and previews it, just like during registration, except the account to receive the PM will be the username entered here. In good or bad. With this I can't really do anything which involves the forum DB query logic, like calling the profile page, because those are done by id#'s. Frankly, I don't see the point of implementing this, it really is a bloat feature. Reinventing the wheel for very little saving in user effort.

2) Your forum id#. With this, I can (for example) link to the profile page, or invoke the compose PM screen that we have over here. This makes some sense as a feature but I'm still very cautious of requiring everyone to fill this out for the mere benefit of one link. You'll still end up with a PM at the forums, which you could have sent very well without this feature, with very little effort required. And some may have trouble figuring out their id#'s, in which case the one maintaining these records would be me, and I'm not very keen on that.

Using e-mail is right out. From the get-go, I decided on not ever using e-mail for any feature on this site, mainly because whenever I have to use a site like this, and it asks for my e-mail addy, I go for a mailinator.com address which amounts to having no address in the records at all. In other words, I bet the majority of e-mail addresses you'd see would be spamboxes which won't get read anyway. That would be so unreliable as a method of reaching an artist, it's not even funny. If you want to reach someone by e-mail, you should check the artist's forum profile. Even that address is likely to be a spambox.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, is it that bothersome to just dig up the person you're trying to reach yourself? That way you're pretty much guaranteed to get the most reliable method of communication possible under these circumstances.

[neob]

i think whatever you did with registration will work(plus probably least amount of effort), as i recall when i signed in i got an email with link to my forum inbox...
so a user who sign in must have a valid forum user/inbox, which is all that is needed, no extra input required.

[Jupix]

i think whatever you did with registration will work(plus probably least amount of effort), as i recall when i signed in i got an email with link to my forum inbox...

No, you were redirected from the registration page to the forum, and the "preview PM" screen in particular. Involved there was no e-mail for the reason I posted above, and no actual PM's because until someone proves otherwise, those would be impossible to send, because that part of the forum (inputting messages into the database) has been designed to prevent just this sort of thing, as a spam deterrent.

a user who sign in must have a valid forum user/inbox, which is all that is needed, no extra input required.

No, to send a PM, you need the recipient's name, and some cryptic dynamic variable contents that the forum logic uses internally to ensure stuff that is being submitted originates here at the forum. This repo code we are talking about can do absolutely nothing to exchange data between the forums and the repo, and as a result, we can't send or even properly compose PM's.

[neob]

i see...

[neob]

quick question, changing ownership of a file in the repo will replace my name from the list of owners for another?
because i want to add ownership to other ppl and remove myself from that list and if by mistake change ownership will wipe the owners list its will be a shame.


btw, how are the graphics guys called, graphic designers, graphic artists or ?

[Jupix]

Regarding ownership:
Transferring ownership means you will no longer be the owner. If you share ownership, you will remain the author. Transferring ownership will not affect shared ownership, so if you had people on that list, they will still be co-owners of that file, while someone else is the actual owner. The way this works is, there's an "owner" field in the file entry table, and then there's a separate table for shared ownership relations, which lists owners for file id's and is only updated by the shared ownership code. If that helps.

My take on contributor titles is as follows:
- People who do work for the 32bpp effort are called graphics developers.
- Graphics developers who do the PNGcodec work are coders
- Graphics developers who draw/model are artists.
- Graphics developers who maintain the wiki or such systems, or participate in conversations about or vote on matters related to graphics development are administrators.

[neob]

it helped and Graphics Developers it is

Do you mind if i transfer ownership of files without an active user in the repo to you?
since i have no intention of following up beside few basic uploads and if they join it will save them time by directly contacting you.

[Jupix]

Files without an active user? What are those? Your files? This is a bit confusing.

In any case, I don't do much with those privileges, especially because I've obviously got global R/W permissions anyway. If you're making entries and want to transfer them to someone right away, first try to choose an artist that's had something to do with the contained files. If there's no one like that, perhaps ask in one of the modeling threads if someone would mind taking over your entry.

[neob]

i meant when the creator doesnt have a user but NM that now.
another feature suggestion, how about some visual mark to files which are licensed?

[GeekToo]

Indeed, Neob, nice suggestion. A field for the licence would be great, currently several tars don't have an explicit license at all, leaving the sprites unusable for composing larger sprite packs. Having a licence dropdown list or something would trigger the artist to think about it, and fill it in. Although I realize it could cause problems too, when an updater of a file would fill in another licence than the original artist.

[Wasila]

I believe I got some artists to declare all their work under GPL v2. It was at the OP of my 'Organisation' thread but that's been merged with the '32bpp Organisation' pinned thread so it's buried there.

Ben_Robbins_ ("I'm stating now that all sprites which I have posted here (tt-forum) as a .tar file are GPLv2. Preview images and .rar's, unless I have otherwise stated, are just for previews, and are here to gather opinions, but are not publicly released, and not for cutting up/reassembling. Any files which I post onto Jupix's file repository or the wiki are GPLv2 likewise.")

GeekToo ("I release any tars or png files I've uploaded in this forum or on Jupix repository up til this moment under the GPL-2 and GPL-3 licence. I grant permission to any user of this forum or OpenTTD developer to redistribute them in a larger graphics pack or to modify them as needed. This includes also the toolbar tar, for which I have JoeD's permission to use the sprites he created.
One exception: the town houses that I created (viewtopic.php?p=722362#p722362) are a derivative work of DMC_Mac's work, maybe not recognizable as such. I do have his permission to modify and distribute that, but he released his work under the CC-BY-SA licence, so I'm bound to that for redistribution, and you'll have to contact him if you want to relicence it.")

maquinista (“Yes, You can use all my graphics under GPL, since most of my contributions are Creative Commons BY or CC BY SA.”)

Varivar (“I've been quite busy with school last weeks and I didn't have much time to follow the discussion on the forums. You can use my works under GPL v2 or CC-BY-SA 3.0, just the one that suites.”)

[Jupix]

I do understand the need for a separate licensing field and will implement it. I'll have a new version out soon(tm) with this feature, search and more.

[Wasila]

Perhaps also a suggestion to release with GPLv2 to allow compatibility?

[neob]

Perhaps also a suggestion to release with GPLv2 to allow compatibility?

its actually a good one, to add some text to the upload screen suggesting to release under GPLv2
(not forcing, as i understand jupix want it to be a developer resource for everyone)

[Jupix]

Sure.

[neob]

i keep seeing this

Code: Select all

Warning: in_array() [function.in-array]: Wrong datatype for second argument in /var/www/html/openttd/gfxdev-repo/index.php  on line 874

at the top.

[Jupix]

Appears to be entry specific, which files are doing that?

[neob]

everyone or more specifically when in edit mode every entry that you are not its owner that i checked.

[Jupix]

specifically when in edit mode every entry that you are not its owner

There's the problem, I couldn't reproduce the bug because I had global R/W. Should be fixed now.