Hello Chris,
I don't see that either. But if some of the top Apache guys
feel, believe or know otherwise, that's good enough for me.
If the only purpose of the tags is to feature contributor names
in a prominent place - namely the source code - then the
real question becomes whether we can achieve this goal
in some other way with reasonable effort. If so, then why
not do the above mentioned the favor?
Concerning the CVS log, you have to be aware that the
committer is not always the contributor. A contributor
may put a patch in bugzilla, which is then comitted by
someone else.
In general, I don't believe that the removal of author tags
is to disguise from where the code came. Rather, some
people may be afraid to find their name in the author tag
of code which has no longer anything to do with what
they actually contributed long ago. Then it would become
their problem to dig through the CVS logs, bugzilla, and
the mailing list archives to prove that they are *not* the
author.
cheers,
Roland
"Chris Lamprecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12.03.2004 09:30
Please respond to "Commons HttpClient Project"
To: "Commons HttpClient Project"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: @author tags
> a silly thing is a silly thing. If removing author tags may
> reduce the risk of being sued, then rip them out.
One reason cited for removing the @author tags is for legal protection --
and it's a good reason. But I don't see how removing @author tags can
offer
any legal protection, unless you also "clean" out the CVS logs (which
store
who committed each change to each file, down to the exact lines of code
they
changed). Not to mention the bugzilla database, this message forum, etc.
-chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
