Replace README.txt with README.md

Patch is working and marking it to RTBC.

smustgrave → closed merge request !4

Will fix this directly. These type of tickets are viewed as credit farming and have been reported dozens of times so I’m just closing out

I think that's a harsh conclusion ... where have similar issues been reported dozens of times?

Actual improvements were done, such as aligning the formatting with the README template → , and the overall impression was improved, links updated etc. and it looks better visually than the current README, in my opinion.

I posted this about a year ago, and I still believe this to be true:

I see that 📌 Replace Redirect README.txt with README.md and update Needs review for the Redirect module was closed, due to possible bad behavior by one or more individuals, suspected of gaming the system in other issues.

I don't think rejecting an actual improvement is a fair nor wise decision, especially when the end result looks awesome (in my opinion) and is a clear improvement over the current README in TXT-format.

In my humble opinion, the current Redirect README.txt looks outdated, and the updated README.md reads much easier, and looks more inviting:

• Current, TXT: https://git.drupalcode.org/project/redirect
• Updated, Markdown: https://git.drupalcode.org/issue/redirect-3330770/-/tree/3330770-replace...

It has been discussed at length, and decided that the Markdown works better than txt in #3192842: Make our README more welcoming by converting it into an "entrypoint" into the Drupal ecosystem → , which I very much agree with. By now, txt README's look like relics from the 90's to me, since most projects now use Markdown on Github and Gitlab.

Community members such as @cedewey, @DamienMcKenna, @FeyP, @froboy, @hansfn, @gisle, @volkswagenchick, @Webbeh, and me have worked hard to create what I think is a great looking and inviting README.md template → based on Markdown.

See https://www.drupal.org/node/2181737/discuss → for all the hard work that went into it.

Generally speaking, I think it's a really sad state of affairs that actual improvements are now being rejected, if the intent of the commit is deemed to be gaming the system.

I can only speak for myself, but it's fairly demotivating and a bit of a downer to feel like you're viewed as a "gamer of the system", when all you're simply trying to do, is improve Drupal.

The main reason I put a lot of time into the README.md template → (as I assume the others have) creating MR's, reviewing MR's, and just overall following along very actively in the issue queues circa November 2022 to March 2023, when the README update "storm" took place, was to make sure that what was implemented looked good in the first place, by having a nice looking template, using the Markdown formatting options, and wasn't merely exchanging the extension from .txt to .md.

My primary concern was to improve the image of Drupal, since the README is the face of Drupal to the world. Not to get credits, which was just an added bonus. For example, I have previously also spent a lot of time translating Drupal into Danish. For this you get zero credit, and I only did this to improve Drupal.

I of course agree that bulk posting meaningless, "this line is 82 characters more than the allowed 80 characters" PHPCS's, or opening empty MR's is most likely attempts at gaming the system, and individuals doing this should be warned to stop this, and eventually labeled as spammers if they continue.

But automatically lumping README improvements together with this kind of obvious bad behavior is counter productive, both for the progress of Drupal, but also because it risks alienating Drupal community members.

In my opinion the credit system has failed, if real actual improvements are now Villy-Nilly rejected, merely due to suspicion of bad behavior, by a single actor.

It should be evaluated if we should get rid of the credit system altogether, if it gets in the way of improvements, and too much time is spent countering cheaters. This is unlikely to happen.

Alternatively, instead of trying to find ways to counter gamers of the system in a never ending game of Whac-A-Mole, certain types of MR's could automatically never get any credit, for example involving PHPCS, README updates, or set at an extremely low value, like 0.0000000000001 credit :)

That would be a simple and pragmatic solution, and one I would be totally fine with.

From #3367061-21: Categorize contributions that could be considered 'gaming the credit system' and propose solutions (policy, automation, etc) → .

I hope you will reconsider. Did you check the resulting README?

I’ll reconsider

As mentioned I already committed an updated README directly. Took a few pieces from MR.

Thanks! A few details:

• The module is called "External Links", with an "s" (the H1 header)
• The Lullabot link uses http in the link, it should be https

The MR here looks better visually, in my opinion (CAPITAL HEADERS feels like being screamed at, for example) -- but that's of course subjective, and in the eye of the beholder :-)

• This MR
• Current README

As I commented about a year ago, I am all right with no credit being given ... but being categorized as a credit gamer is not great.

Generally speaking, I think it's a really sad state of affairs that actual improvements are now being rejected, if the intent of the commit is deemed to be gaming the system.

I can only speak for myself, but it's fairly demotivating and a bit of a downer to feel like you're viewed as a "gamer of the system", when all you're simply trying to do, is improve Drupal.