On 07.10.2019 20:29, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: > I do not have a strong opinion either way, but I find the argument not > convincing. > I strongly believe that a part of the source/component has probably been > written and is maintained by a very limited number of people. Occasionally > somebody might "adopt" this but at that point this person quite clearly > has the agency and responsibility to do add a new @authors line. > > Somebody adding an occasional patch is of course also the author of that > particular change, but the authors info is more than credit to the > copyright/code, it is also an indication who is most likely knowledgeable > about that part, e.g. if somebody wants to use it or improve/fix it or just > understand it. > > Hence, from the point of view of credit/copyright I do not really care. > But as a general indicator who wrote that part (esp. in GNUnet: that > component) > I find it useful.
I agree with Martin, but there are still problems we need to address. What about those authors who wrote most of the code, but aren't available for questions any more. What about people who aren't authors of code, but despite that know much about the code. Maybe we shouldn't call those persons being knowledgeable authors, but somehow different. Cheers t3sserakt > > BR > >> On 7. Oct 2019, at 19:51, Christian Grothoff <groth...@gnunet.org> wrote: >> >> Signed PGP part >> Hi all, >> >> Sorry for cross-posting, but 'someone' just triggered me and this >> applies to multiple packages, at least in theory: >> >> On 10/7/19 7:33 PM, someone wrote (privately): >>> Trying to define authors of individual source files (as opposed to >>> individual commits) seems hopelessly subjective as they get extensively >>> edited over time. >> This was about the community removing author attributions in individual >> source files from glibc. I have been thinking about this as well >> recently, and 'someone's message succinctly describes the issue: we have >> @author comments, but they don't really reflect contributors. Often we >> forget to add, copy or even remove @author tags, and this is not easily >> fixed either. >> >> Naturally, this is not about removing (all) credit: we would still have >> both the top-level AUTHORS file and the attribution via the Git history. >> >> So, please do let me know if you (for whatever reason) would object to >> removing the per-source file @author attributions. If nobody has a >> (reasonable / sustained) objection, I'll probably remove the @author >> lines in a few weeks. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Christian >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > GNUnet-developers mailing list > GNUnet-developers@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list GNUnet-developers@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
