Here's what CONTRIBUTING.md currently says about adding a resource:
Is it "awesome"?
For a resource to be added to the list, it must...
- Be in english;
- Be in a minimal working state;
- Have a clear purpose (implementation reference is okay, too) and/or provide something interesting;
- Provide a minimal documentation briefly describing what is the project and how to make use of it.
These criteria are discussed here.
If the resource is in another language, still work in progress, abandoned or you don't think reaches the described standard BUT it's still related to Game Boy development/hacking you can add it to the MORE.md file.
These sound to me like very basic criteria. The first one, "be in english [sic]", sounds so obvious as to not even be worth mentioning -- (a) the whole repo is in English, and (b) we probably would link to a truly awesome resource in another language if we knew of one worth linking. (Currently this is only even relevant for the "GBDK tutorials in french" that are relegated to MORE.md, but if something truly awesome/novel existed, I expect we'd either link to it or get it translated as quickly as possible.) And the rest cover pretty much any project that someone would create for or about a Game Boy -- the only possible subjective sticking point is "provide something interesting", but it's not like people deliberately create uninteresting things.
Raising this issue is spurred by someone wanting to add hash-bench-gb to the "awesome" list and being redirected to MORE.md in #259. No complaints about that, but if it were my repo and I were wanting to get it listed, I'd probably try adding it to the main list first too, since hash functions seem at least as relevant as, say DES encryption.
That said, I probably wouldn't try adding it in the first place, because it's just one more GB dev project; nothing remarkable about it. So I think that's a clear candidate for adding to the list of what a resource "must" have to be listed, even though it's hard to actually spell out. It would help a lot if MORE.md already had a "Projects" or "Demos" section with the sort of code that's unremarkable enough to not "deserve" going on the awesome list. But maybe we'd rather not have such a section in the first place? In which case that too should be explained in the contributing guidelines -- that this is a curated list of widely useful, technically interesting, historically relevant, or already popular material, not an index of every single GB-related link out there.
Here's what CONTRIBUTING.md currently says about adding a resource:
These sound to me like very basic criteria. The first one, "be in english [sic]", sounds so obvious as to not even be worth mentioning -- (a) the whole repo is in English, and (b) we probably would link to a truly awesome resource in another language if we knew of one worth linking. (Currently this is only even relevant for the "GBDK tutorials in french" that are relegated to MORE.md, but if something truly awesome/novel existed, I expect we'd either link to it or get it translated as quickly as possible.) And the rest cover pretty much any project that someone would create for or about a Game Boy -- the only possible subjective sticking point is "provide something interesting", but it's not like people deliberately create uninteresting things.
Raising this issue is spurred by someone wanting to add hash-bench-gb to the "awesome" list and being redirected to MORE.md in #259. No complaints about that, but if it were my repo and I were wanting to get it listed, I'd probably try adding it to the main list first too, since hash functions seem at least as relevant as, say DES encryption.
That said, I probably wouldn't try adding it in the first place, because it's just one more GB dev project; nothing remarkable about it. So I think that's a clear candidate for adding to the list of what a resource "must" have to be listed, even though it's hard to actually spell out. It would help a lot if MORE.md already had a "Projects" or "Demos" section with the sort of code that's unremarkable enough to not "deserve" going on the awesome list. But maybe we'd rather not have such a section in the first place? In which case that too should be explained in the contributing guidelines -- that this is a curated list of widely useful, technically interesting, historically relevant, or already popular material, not an index of every single GB-related link out there.