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 <[email protected]>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/%[email protected]%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 <[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. > > >
