ok, having reviewed the referenced board summary, I see that even though
the explicitly discourage the use of @author tags, they also state that:

 - for contributions of entire files/packages, it is permissible to
> include a section saying something along the lines of "originally
>  written by ...". this text should occur *after* the copyright and
> license header.


in light of this, I will remove the @author tags, and add comments noting
original author; is this acceptable?

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Vincent Hennebert <vhenneb...@gmail.com>wrote:

> The discussion about @author tags is an old debate that was solved years
> ago in the favour of removing them. This is actually an official
> recommendation made by the ASF Board:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-jmeter-dev/200402.mbox/%3c4039f65e.7020...@atg.com%3E
>
> Like Pascal said, the existing tags in the FOP codebase appear in code
> that predates this recommendation.
>
> In the present case, since you committed the files yourself, it’s
> crystal-clear who is the author of the code IMO. svn annotate will
> reveal that much better than an @author tag.
>
> I think we should keep in line with the Board recommendation.
>
> Thanks,
> Vincent
>
>
> On 01/03/12 09:00, Glenn Adams wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Pascal Sancho <pascal.san...@takoma.fr
> >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.
> >
>

Reply via email to