Graham Percival wrote:
> For this reason, I categorically refuse to have file-specific
> ownership. Documentation is documentation; any doc committers
> will be listed in the same place.
About docs, I completely agree. I didn't have to spend long in the git
logs to realise that it just wasn't feasible to meaningfully identify
contributors -- there's too much moving, renaming, copy-pasting, etc.
> I still think it would be a complete waste of time, but if you
> really want to track down file ownership of source code, _I_ won't
> stop you. You'd better check that everybody else is ok with this,
> though. And by "ok", I mean "agrees to you doing the initial
> work, *and* commits to maintain such info in the future".
I think with code it has more value, and ought to be reasonably easy to
maintain. There's also the fact that the code, unlike the docs, _does_
contain per-file copyright notices, and that these are wrong. If we're
going to have them, they ought to be accurate.
Best wishes,
-- Joe
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
