Improve help text for Zoom finer

Thanks @ressa for this heads up!
This commit https://git.drupalcode.org/project/leaflet/-/commit/146d53adec998339d37e... improved both Initial Zoom and Zoom Finer description/ help texts.
Will be part of the new 10.2.27 Leaflet module release.

Thanks @itamair!

The new sentence helped me understand it:

Use this selector (-5 | +5) to

I tried it, and I could zoom out by adding -3, but 3 did not zoom in ... Should we file an issue for this? After understanding how it works, I added an example and a Merge Request.

Restore tip zoom tips?

It looks like the below sentence has been removed. I do think this text is still helpful.

As a reference consider Zoom 5 for a large country, 10 for a city, 15 for a road or a district, etc.

It would definitely be helpful for me, setting a sane initial value, so I don't have to try again sometimes I even get it right the first time, using that help text :) ... It could probably also help many other users, who don't set zoom levels regularly?

I included this in the MR.

Granting credit to issue contributors

About crediting in issues, I recently had a chance to take a closer look at the Granting credit recommendations, here they are:

Contributions to credit

The following are examples of types of contributions that should be recognized:

• Creating a well-written issue that describes a problem
• Proposing a solution (either in the form of a patch, or a text comment)
• Reviewing or testing a patch
• Adding before/after screenshots of User Interface, styling, or other UI changes that have not already been posted by another user.
• Adding documentation

From Granting credit to issue contributors → .

I also re-wrote parts of that page, to make it clearer that credit is any longer granted to anyone automatically. Many project maintainers are not aware of this ... I left this comment for @hongpong in another issue:

I took a closer look at the Granting credit → text, and it look like it's possible to give credit by simply checking the names under "Credit & committing", and saving the issue, also after changing status to Fixed. Perhaps you could try it?

Check and uncheck the names of users listed in the box, depending on whether they contributed to moving the issue towards resolution. The credits will appear on the user and organization profiles when the issue status is changed to fixed, or when it automatically changes to closed fixed.

As I understand it, the Git commit crediting option is for the commit message in Gitlab, not the actual crediting ...
[...]

From Import permalink as URL paths ✨ Import permalink as URL paths RTBC

I checked the two latest Leaflet issues, where no credit was granted:

• 💬 Displaying marks as map pans Active
• 📌 Little typo in leaflet.api.php Active

As I see it, even small corrections can be important, and if a user takes time to understand a problem and reports it, I think it should get recognition and get credited. From my perspective, there is no harm in being generous with giving credit -- better to give a little more, than too little.

Also just to give a virtual pat on the shoulder, to say "thank you". For new users, this can also serve as recognition that their contribution (even a small one) makes a difference in this module, but also just making Drupal better overall. I understand that you are busy coding and maintaining multiple modules, and that's a lot of work in itself, which I am very grateful for, let's not forget that :)

I created an issue about "3" not zooming in.

Ok @ressa ... thanks to you.
I merged the MR !51 just adding a further comment / commit to specify that that Zoom Finer settings will still be constrained according with Max & Min Zoom settings.

Thanks @itamair for adding and expanding the description, it'll help me (and others) next time the zoom levels need to be set :)

I am puzzled about credits though .. have you stopped crediting users completely? I wrote a fairly long text, but you didn't comment on it ...

hi @ressa ... well, I read all you pasted on Crediting and sorry if I missed something,
but sincerely I don't know what I can do more with that ...

I always click on the contributors names (that look contributing to an issue) when committing a patch or something and you can see that in all these related commits there is the "by ressa" in the commit message.

But even in this latest one the commit itself (coming from the merging of MR !51) is at your name (you as author of the commit).
so indeed I assume the Drupal.org crediting system should be fairly happy with all this ... otherwise it is simply not working properly, and not reporting all that in the contributors profiles.

My apologises if I missed something here, and please explain me better and guide me how to rather assign credits (because may be your are more aligned with latest changes on that, and I am fully wilful to credit who contributes so nicely, as you do ... ),
because I am already dedicating much time in taking care of all the issues that come along all the Geofield stack of modules ...

itamair → credited lussoluca → .

Yea, it ended up as a wall of text ... I am sorry if I didn't express myself clearly. The problem is that the commit message does not grant credit, which many think, such as you and @hongpong, and many others ... The commit message does nothing, it is just nice to look at, on Gitlab :)

Credit is only granted by checking the checkboxes next to each user name, setting Status to "Fixed" and then clicking "Save".

See for example my profile, where I am only credited for three Leaflet issues, including this issue, where you checked the checkbox and saved:

Leaflet issues credited to ressa →

But I am not credited for other Leaflet issues, since my user name was not checked at the bottom under "Hide Credit & committing". For example these two, but I have helped in many more Leaflet issues:

• 📌 Make Form display use Leaflet Map: OSM Mapnik by default, same as Display does Active
• 🐛 Finer zoom: -3 zooms out, 3 does not zoom in Active

As a contrast, see Menu migration (Import & Export) issues credited to ressa → where I have been credited via the checkboxes at the bottom for all eight issues where I was involved.

I have now updated the Granting credit → text, and outlined the three most important key points.

Does the new top section make sense?

Ok ... thanks @ressa for the further explanation.
But wow ... that looks pretty weird, and also weak.

So, please confirm me: it looks that someone is credited only when its username is checked and the issue is saved as Fixed?
Is this correct ... ?

Thus I could also fix and credit someone (that was originally not) simply re-opening the same issue (such in "Needs Review"), check the specific username and Resave it as Fixed again?
Would it make the work also ... ?

I think the crediting/commit builder user interface under the issues could have been constructed better ... It also doesn't help that all auto-crediting for opening an issue, or creating a branch was removed, due to abuse. Previously, many users taking part in issues just got credited automatically.

Another thing is the documentation, which was a bit hard to understand -- this is why I emphasized that checkboxes is the only way to grant credit, not via the commit.

Anyway, at some point, all issues move to Gitlab, and then crediting will hopefully be less difficult. But in the meantime, we need to make sure to credit users manually.

About the method you describe, you could be right ... The issue may need to be re-opened, or maybe not? ... I am not sure, since I am not maintainer of any module.

I looked over a few Leaflet issues, and there is a quite a bit of missing credit, and it looks like the same situation with Geofield ... So I thought about offering my help with granting credits? I am not interested in any other roles, such as coding (I can't, really) or releasing versions, or anything. I would be fine with getting the lowest permissions possible ("Guest" on Gitlab?), fix the crediting following the guidelines under Granting credit to issue contributors >> Contributions to credit → , and be removed again as maintainer when it's done. What do you think?

I offer my help, since I think your efforts are better spend on coding and maintaining Leaflet, Geofield, Geocoder, etc. and not going through old issues, to grant credit.

@ressa thanks for your availability ... but the crediting is not such a big deal, in the end.
Myself is often not credited enough (or even at all) many times for all the job and the contribution spent in these modules.
But I don't do for being credited on every single commit I do ... but just to make these things / modules more solid and usable foro the Drupal community (and myself).

There is no permission role for just re-adjusting credits on past/fixed/closed issues ... and it is pointless to get any permission for no coding activities 8in this context).

Let's continue the way we work and have been working so far. Your care and contribution have been very valuable so far, on the Geofield stack of modules (and I hope will keep being) and I feel responsible for being sufficiently responsive when high quality contributors like you post something ...
And believe me this is not the case with many others, because indeed I am doing all this in my spare time, and without any payment,
but just as genuine passion and contribution to Drupal geomappig capabilities,

Bye and thanks again @ressa, and say hello to your (and my) dearest Denmark ;-)

You're welcome, but I do think it's not a small thing ... Credits may not be a big deal to you or me -- I also mainly just appreciate having great mapping modules, very well functioning, maintained and expanded with new features by you.

But the Drupal community has decided that credit is a big deal, since it can help convey whether a developer or company is more or less involved in Drupal.

Imagine this scenario: A company or individual spends considerable time and energy fixing or expanding for example the Leaflet module -- if a another company needs Leaflet assistance, it's not clear that the developer is very active, and has deep knowledge about it. If on the other hand all their contributions were credited, it could say "Leaflet, 10 issues" where instead it might just say "Leaflet, 2 issues" (or even none), giving a false impression.

Also, if you read the Issue etiquette → page, granting credit to users who spend their own time improving Drupal contrib modules is worded as not being optional.

Maintainers should grant credit, and it's fairly precisely worded, under #3:

Attribution and credit system

When you are a maintainer of a project hosted on Drupal.org, you control the project page and the contents of the repository. It is important that you observe the etiquette regarding attribution, issue credits and the proper use of our credit system:

1. Do not remove the name of previous contributors to the project from README, composer.json, comments in code, or from the project page.
2. If you add attribution to yourself, do also add attribution for previous maintainers that have contributed to the project.
3. When marking an issue as Fixed, do give credit to people who actually helped resolve the issue (see Granting credit to issue contributors → to learn more).
4. Do not abuse our credit system by duplicating small changes, such as coding standards fixes, across many issues in a single project, rather than creating a single issue for resolving them.

Also, you could see the granting of credits as a method of advertising all the geo-related modules you maintain to a wider audience. Each and every credit will get listed under the users profile, giving the Geofield stack modules more visibility, and more visits, and thereby usage by potential users.

If I can't help out with granting credit, maybe another maintainer can?

And thanks for the nice greeting, Denmark is dark, cold, and wet these days :)

Well, I didn't mean that the credit system isn't important. I'm very aware of it too... and I also recommend this recent article by Dries Buytaert which highlights the importance of contribution credits: https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker-problem

But I was just expressing the fact that I myself have often not received credits on some issues and modules to which I have contributed, but I personally have not made a big drama out of it, appreciating the work done by the maintainers anyway and taking for granted that maybe they have forgotten about it, or have considered my contribution to be of little importance.
In the end all this is done on a voluntary basis... and it's already a lot of time that goes into following up and solving the issues,
and as we have understood at the moment the credit system is not so clear and automatic.

As far as I'm concerned, I will continue to do as I have always done up to now (even if now with greater awareness of your explanations). That is, assigning credits to whoever I think is right by solving the issues as fixed ...
And I'm sorry if sometimes I forget or make a mistake in doing it as everyone would like (I'm not infallible, and I also have other duties to fulfill).

Bye, and see you on the next Drupal issue ;-)

It wasn't my intention to make any drama, least of all for personal credit -- I mainly raised the situation on behalf of the other users. And I totally understand, maintaining several very popular modules takes a lot of effort, so I do understand where your decision is coming from. I hope you don't feel like I am singling you out, that was not my intention. At some point all issues move to Gitlab anyway (hopefully soon) so let's just move on, and keep on improving Geofield, Leaflet, etc. Have a nice day, and see you in the issue queues :)

Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.