> On Jan 18, 2018, at 6:59 AM, Joshua Marantz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Stripping is OK with me, but note that the commit history does not always > accurately reflect authorship, primarily because the source-of-truth for > many years was Google's internal source control system. We tried to get > people to commit their own internal changes to google3, but sometimes > they'd miss it and their commit in git would look like it came from whoever > committed next. > > In the large, it's probably close enough.
I think stripping would be a good idea too. And going forward, with Githhub PR’s being required (I think?) we would always get appropriate attribution for the Author fields. The only caveat is if the original author had a “Copyright” in the attribution, then I think you should retain that in the NOTICE file, or keep it in the source file. Cheers, — leif > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Otto van der Schaaf <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Over at https://github.com/apache/incubator-pagespeed-mod/pull/1717 >> there's >> a discussion >> about whether to retain comments like "// Author: [email protected]" in the >> code, >> or not. >> >> Jukka summarized: >> >> >> *I don't think there's an official policy against author comments, but it's >> certainly a discouraged practice. The version control system is much better >> than author comments in tracking down people who know a particular piece of >> code best, and explicit author comments go against the principle of the >> project community being jointly responsible for the entire codebase. Some >> projects maintain a CONTRIBUTORS file or include thanks to all contributors >> in release notes, both of which practices are much better than author >> comments in giving kudos to contributors. None of these is necessary.* >> >> Considering that we've been able to keep the commit history, and that the >> practice of these >> comments is discouraged at the ASF, I lean towards stripping them. >> >> Does anyone have any objections against this? >> >> Otto >>
