incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Shane Holden <>
Subject Re: whoweare.html
Date Wed, 06 Nov 2002 03:13:42 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> :-? :-/
> Just to make it clear before I get mistaken (not talking to Peter, but 
> as a general note), I'm not talking about code ownership.
> In Cocoon and Forrest (the projects I'm more heavily involved as for 
> concrete commits), author tags are not a problem.
> I find it cool when I can see that a certain class was made by a certain 
> committer on some date, and changed by others, it gives you a sense of 
> what happened, and who you might ask to get futher advice on it eventually.
> I tend to ask all developers to add their name to the authors with any 
> commit they make that has impacted on the code (ie not cosmetics), and 
> this levels the credit system. You never know from the authors if a 
> certain one has made 1000 lines of code or only one.
> I find code ownership a problem that can and must be prevented and 
> resolved in the community. A trick that seasoned committers do on new 
> committers is to change their first commits and work on them, to show 
> that the code is of everyone. If they complain, it's time for a nice and 
> bold explanation.
>  From my experience on this, it's not something one forgets easily ;-)
> One thing that *could* be a problem is that @author tags can give the 
> impression that a cretain piece of code is "maintained" by the authors, 
> or that they are responsible for it, and this can reduce peer review.
> But honestly if it happens I doubt it's just because of the author tags, 
> and a missing tag cannot replace behaviour.
> Also, having author tags shows where the "stakes" of the 
> committers=stakeholders of the code are.
> Continuing a discussion had recently on the commons list, this has 
> impact on the vetos IIUC.

Most of the information you mentioned above is stored in CVS and in more 
detail.  Cluttering up a file with a bunch of useless 'i did this, i did 
that' is pointless and redundant when CVS has it all saved anyway.

Just because someone authored the first version of a document or code 
doesn't mean they had any bearing on the current state of it.  It's lame 
to take credit for something that's been contributed to a community and 
being maintained by it.  IMO that individual is no longer the 
author/owner of it, the community is.

Now giving credit where credit is do is nice and that's why everything 
contributed to httpd gets a blurb in CVS which is more than sufficent.


View raw message