> On 8. Oct 2019, at 07:50, t3sserakt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Signed PGP part > > > > 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.
I actually though te same thing after I wrote the mail. For people who are "awol": Still useful in order to "know" that this component is unmaintained (e.g. in order to "deprecate" it eventually if unused). Regarding people who are knowledgeable but have not contributed code: I actually included those in my description above (adoption). The @author _tag_ might be misleading, but that is just doxygen markup, really. BR > > Cheers > > t3sserakt > >> >> BR >> >> >>> On 7. Oct 2019, at 19:51, Christian Grothoff <[email protected]> >>> 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 >> >> [email protected] >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers > > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
