Stuart,
There is no separate list for contributors. The developers list *is* the contributors
list. This list deals with all issues relevant to developers, not only code. OK? Ceki
At 18:35 08.06.2001 +0800, you wrote:
>Developers Mailing List
>-----------------------
>
>Please do not take offence BUT...
>
>Is it possible to limit the traffic on the developers alias to specific code
>issues only. Subjects such as 'adding someone as a contributor' or 'theft
>of authorship' are only directly relevant to the contributors themselves
>(Noted: This e-mail is not talking about code).
>
>Regards,
>
>Stuart
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 5:00 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Theft of authorship
>
>
>At 01:24 08.06.2001 -0700, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
>>I think this is really a significant question. How significant a patch
>>does it take for someone to legitimately be considered an additional
>>"author" of a particular source file? Attribution in a CVS commit should
>>always be there -- but is that really enough.
>>
>>Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to come up with ideas for a
>>document describing reasonable policies for making such a decision -- but
>>it would be useful to have such a thing (i.e. I vote +0 :-).
>
>The rule I use is to be liberal when granting authorship but extremely
>conservative in removing authorship.
>
>Ten lines of new code turns a contributor to an author for the relevant
>file. In some rather rare cases, small (< 5 lines) but insightful changes
>can have a big impact. Consequently they merit authorship and even committer
>status.
>
>In principle, authorship can never be removed regardless of how much one
>changes the original code. After 65 iterations it might well be the case
>that not one single lines survives from the original code. That still does
>not justify the removal of the original author's name.
>
>On the other hand, authorship is not viral. If someone creates a new class
>extending a class that I wrote, that does not make me an author of the
>extending class.
>
>I religiously follow these rules and expect everyone else in the log4j
>community to do the same. Regards, Ceki
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ceki Gülcü
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
