Agreed, let's get rid of them. I occasionally get direct emails from people who saw my name in the authors list, and even when the attribution is still relevant, it's typically been so long since I wrote that code that I don't remember the details anyway. Git blame is the right tool if you want to attribute a particular piece of code, and I think the github contributor page is a reasonable view if people want general credit. (Just curious: is there something similar on googlesource.com?)
Steve On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:16 AM Bobby Bruce <bbr...@ucdavis.edu> wrote: > I'm for removing authors. Personally, I find there are no good rules on > when you should add yourself as an author when making edits to a file. This > often leaves me feeling like I'm taking undue credit by adding by adding > myself as one after making only minor changes, or that I'm avoiding > potential blame or responsibility by not. Git-blame is sufficient, and the > maintainers file gives a broad overview of who should be consulted on > specific components. I'm not opposed to a more general "AUTHORS" file, or > something like that, though it seems a bit redundant. > > -- > Dr. Bobby R. Bruce > Room 2235, > Kemper Hall, UC Davis > Davis, > CA, 95616 > > web: https://www.bobbybruce.net > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 9:42 AM Andreas Sandberg <andreas.sandb...@arm.com > > > wrote: > > > I don't really have any strong opinions about this, but I agree with > > Gabe's arguments. Another problem with the current approach is > > determining how the authors list should be updated when moving code > > between files. > > > > We recently had a related discussion about copyright notices and whether > > the git log could be reasonably used to find copyright holders. Some of > > the lawyers in the discussion argued the repo history (the git metadata) > > and the source code are distinct entities and that many distribution > > forms would lack the necessary data to track copyright holders. It's not > > uncommon to lose revision history, for example, GitHub offers a > > 'download as zip' function, and many grad students tend to check in > > their base version of gem5 as a single commit without history. Tracking > > for kudos/blame is slightly different though since copyright has an > > important legal function. > > > > Jason's solution sounds a lot better than manually tracking authors. It > > wouldn't be too hard to write a script that automatically maintains an > > AUTHORS file and lists contributors (potentially sorted by commits or > > lines of code) per directory / keyword. That would convey the same > > information as the authors field. However, I'm not convinced we need > > this in the repo to begin with. The MAINTAINERS file already lists > > subsystem experts, so we don't need it to track exports. To track kudos, > > wouldn't it make more sense to mine the repo nightly and publish the > > results on the new website instead? > > > > Cheers, > > Andreas > > > > On 18/01/2020 18:09, Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > > This would be OK with me. However, I think it should be coupled with us > > > writing good release notes with each release which gives the code > > > contributors credit for their contributions. > > > > > > IIRC, the purpose of the "author" field was to know who to call when > > things > > > broke. I agree that this purpose has now been subsumed by git blame. > > > > > > On the other hand, I think it also served as the de facto way of giving > > > people credit for their contributions. We should be sure to find > another > > > way to do this, too (e.g., release notes). > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Jason > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 6:00 PM Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi folks. I would like to suggest dropping authors from the header > > comments > > >> in the various files in gem5. That field is not really maintained, and > > it's > > >> not clear even when it should be updated. The history is a much more > > >> accurate and complete record of who did what. > > >> > > >> What do people think about that? > > >> > > >> Gabe > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> gem5-dev mailing list > > >> gem5-dev@gem5.org > > >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > > > gem5-dev mailing list > > > gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the > > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy > the > > information in any medium. Thank you. > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the > > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy > the > > information in any medium. Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > > gem5-dev mailing list > > gem5-dev@gem5.org > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > gem5-dev@gem5.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
