On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Pascal Sancho <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi, > > about @author tag, I agree with Vincent, reasons are clearly detailed here > [1] (note that it is not a strict rule, just an "incitation"). > > IIRC, this "incitation" had been discussed a long time after the FOP > project began, and in addition, some parts (like rtf) had been developed > outside FOP before donated to FOP project. So it can remain some old code > or recently added libs that do not respect FOP coding style rules, that > should not be taken as example. > > [1] > http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/**fop/dev/conventions.html#java-**style<http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/dev/conventions.html#java-style> >From what I can tell from the comments in [1], this convention was motivated by avoiding possible clutter from having every modification to a file (by a different author/contributor) be marked; that is, used as a form of history log. >From my reading, I don't believe this convention is intended to apply for original authors. This is backed by the language in [1] explicitly stating "excepted from this general rule are potentially confusing or wide ranging changes". In the present case, I would characterize the new CS files as "wide ranging changes". Also, I note that [1] states that this convention is: "not enforced; anyone is free to remove such comments". As I stated in my prior mail above, I believe there is value to retaining @author in the case of original author attribution as well as for those cases where an existing work is significantly altered (in a wide ranging manner). This information is independent of the svn log and should not be discarded (in my opinion). FYI, I did not add @author to any existing file that I modified; only to new files I originated. G.
