11:41 a.m.
Hi DNA Volk,
I do not have any problems with that, if the @author tag has to be
removed on source codes, so that we can win more contributors (most
important is that thereby we reach sth.). I give a +1.
Best regards,
Serge.
-------
|||| Serge Emmanuel Pagop
|||| IT Senior Consultant
||||
|||| JBUG Munich Founder
||||
|||| innoQ Deutschland GmbH, Halskestr. 17, D-40880 Ratingen, Germany
||||
|||| Business mobile: +49 178 4049592,
|||| Business Fax: +49 2102 77160-1,
|||| Business E-Mail: serge.pagop(a)innoq.com,
|||| Private E-Mail: serge.pagop(a)googlemail.com
|||| Web: http://www.innoq.com,
|||| Weblog: http://www.innoq.com/blog/sp,
|||| JBUG Munich: http://www.jbug-munich.org
On Jan 15, 2009, at 6:29 PM, dna-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org wrote:
> Send dna-dev mailing list submissions to
> dna-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/dna-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> dna-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> dna-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of dna-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Re: @author tags in our codebase (John Verhaeg)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:29:27 -0500 (EST)
> From: John Verhaeg <jverhaeg(a)redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [dna-dev] Re: @author tags in our codebase
> To: Sergey Litsenko <litsenko_sergey(a)yahoo.com>
> Cc: dna-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> Message-ID:
>
<406785845.1506141232040567551.JavaMail.root(a)zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I'm not completely sold on this, but I don't really have much of an
> argument against it either, beyond worrying that potential
> contributors might not feel they're getting "enough" attribution
> without the direct tie-in between the source and their names. Not
> sure if I understand Sergey's comments about accepting contributor
> efforts - how does this preclude those efforts? Other than that, I'd
> give a +1.
>
> John Verhaeg
> Red Hat, Inc.
> (314) 336-2950
>
> ----- "Sergey Litsenko" <litsenko_sergey(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> |
> |
> | -1
> | It is optional - would be better to allow keeping authors tags
> while automating process of getting full list.
> |
> | On one hand, I'm not sold on the idea that if the author tag will
> be removed it might help to brought more commiters. If I see some
> issue in the source code and I know how to fix it - I'll provide a
> patch/fix whetever I'm in the "magic list" or not.
> |
> | The only question that might be asked: are OSS team members
> interested in accepting such contributor's efforts or not?
> | It's about mentality and maturity of committers as well as part of
> OSS project's culture established by team members - e.g. responding
> to user questions, issues, etc - in e-mails, users forums, etc and
> welcoming user's opinions on how things should work (functional
> requirements). Also you can use something like following: "@author
> DNA Expert Group" for classes/packages designed / developed by group
> of authors.
> |
> | Generally, I believe that everything that is part of Java Language
> specification (e.g.) and/or part of general practices is valid and
> justified to be part of any source code.
> |
> | On the other hand, since it's possible to automate process of
> getting list of autors from both - SCM repository and source code/
> POM - maintenance would not be that hard , and IMO efforts should go
> that way rather than removing tags. I bet that I can find some maven
> plugin or develop my own to automate that process. For example,
http://www.statsvn.org
> and http://stat-scm.sourceforge.net are good starting points.
> |
> | I will vote "+2" on the ability to automate process of getting
> full list of contributors (maven report plugin) and makit it part of
> distribution and Maven project site .
> |
> | Sergiy
> |
> |
> |
> From: "dna-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org" <dna-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org
> >
> | To: dna-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> | Sent: Wednesday, 14 January, 2009 6:43:27 PM
> | Subject: dna-dev Digest, Vol 10, Issue 5
> |
> | Send dna-dev mailing list submissions to
> | dna-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> |
> | To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/dna-dev
> | or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> | dna-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org
> |
> | You can reach the person managing the list at
> | dna-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org
> |
> | When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> | than "Re: Contents of dna-dev digest..."
> |
> |
> | Today's Topics:
> |
> | 1. Re: @author tags in our codebase (Randall Hauch)
> | 2. Re: @author tags in our codebase (Vatsal)
> |
> |
> |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> |
> | Message: 1
> | Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:03:23 -0600
> | From: Randall Hauch < rhauch(a)redhat.com >
> | Subject: Re: [dna-dev] @author tags in our codebase
> | To: JBoss DNA < dna-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >
> | Message-ID: < 160467FE-4D64-4943-BBAC-3D9535FD670C(a)redhat.com >
> | Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> |
> | We never really came to a consensus on this question, and I'd like
> to
> | try to do that. To be clear, here is the proposal:
> |
> | 1) Remove the @author lines from the code, and instead rely upon SVN
> | as the official master record of individual contributions
> | 2) Change the Eclipse preference files to remove the @author lines
> | from the code templates
> | 3) Add a AUTHORS file to the distribution(s); this file will contain
> | the names and email addresses for all contributors, and can even
> allow
> | a contributor to describe their contribution if they so desire.
> | 4) Change the headers to remove the "@author" wording and to replace
> | it with "See the AUTHORS file in the
> | distribution for a full listing of individual contributors."
> | 5) Change the POM files to include the AUTHORS file in each
> | distribution.
> |
> | The AUTHORS file would look like this:
> |
> | Randall Hauch ( rhauch(a)redhat.com )
> | John Verhaeg ( jverhaeg(a)redhat.com )
> | Dan Florian ( dflorian(a)redhat.com )
> | Stefano Maestri ( stefano.maestri(a)javalinux.it )
> | Serge Pagop ( Serge.Pagop(a)innoq.com )
> | Michael Trezzi ( michael(a)mathwizard.org )
> | Alexandre Porcelli ( porcelli(a)devexp.com.br )
> | Sergiy Litsenko ( litsenko_sergey(a)yahoo.com )
> |
> | Note that unlike the @author tags, this file will list all
> | contributors, and the names of new contributors will be appended to
> | the list by the project lead. (No names will be removed from this
> | file.)
> |
> | I would prefer to hear from every contributor, so please respond
> with
> | +1 if you agree with this proposal, 0 if you don't care, or -1 if
> you
> | want to keep the @author tags. If you vehemently want to keep the
> | @author tags and names in the source file, please say so.
> |
> | Best regards,
> |
> | Randall
> |
> | On Nov 18, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Randall Hauch wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > On Nov 18, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Stefano Maestri wrote:
> | >
> | >>
> | >> Randall Hauch wrote on 17/11/08 22:17:
> | >>> I've recently read a suggestions for open source communities
> that
> | >>> the
> | >>> author names are removed from the content. In the case of DNA's
> | >>> codebase, that would mean removing the @author tags.
> | >> May I ask where?
> | >
> | > I knew someone was going to ask. :-) I had to go back and look,
> but
> | > here are a few:
> | >
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645&ei=8o0YS...
> | > http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Coding+Conventions
> | > http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#other-conventions
> | > http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/author_tags
> | >
> | >>
> | >>>
> | >>> tags:
> | >>>
> | >>> 1. When there are no @author tags, then there is a far smaller
> | >>> notion of ownership by the author(s). On one side of this, the
> | >>> author(s) may not appreciate changes to "their" code, and on
the
> | >>> other side, non-authors may feel intimidated about working on
> | >>> code for which they are not an author. IMO, we want to
> | >>> _discourage_ ownership and _encourage_ everyone to work in any
> | >>> area of the code they want.
> | >>>
> | >> +1...but is really @author tag intimating someone, or giving
> | >> ownership
> | >> to some other? Quiet frankly not for me.
> | >
> | > I hope it doesn't discourage people from contributing and diving
> in
> | > wherever they want. BTW, it's quite possible that no matter what
> | > our policy, some people may not like it. For example, if we were
> to
> | > adopt a policy of NOT including @author tags, some people may
> refuse
> | > to join the community because they see the @author tag as proof
> they
> | > worked on it. It takes all kinds of people. :-)
> | >
> | >>
> | >> Anyway I agree on the _discurage_ownership and
> _encourage_everyone to
> | >> work in any area, so if it can help, remove @author tag.
> | >>
> | >>> 1. @author tags can be inaccurate. SVN has the true history of
> who
> | >>> contributed exactly what code.
> | >>>
> | >> +1
> | >
> | > IMO, this is perhaps the biggest justifiable reason. Its rubbish
> if
> | > its not up-to-date, so it seems far better to not have @author
> tags.
> | >
> | >>
> | >>>
> | >>> The only benefit I can think of is that the @author tag does
> help to
> | >>> give some notion of who is the "expert" of the class, in
case
> they
> | >>> need to be consulted. However, I don't believe this is really
> | >>> much of
> | >>> a reason, since it's far better to consult the SVN history and
> see
> | >>> who
> | >>> actually modified the different parts of the code. In fact, the
> | >>> annotated views in Fisheye even show on many of the lines the
> name
> | >>> of
> | >>> the last person to change it. For example,
> | >>> see
http://fisheye.jboss.org/browse/DNA/trunk/dna-common/src/main/java/org/jb...
> | >>>
> | >> abosolutely better to use fisheye...if fine people of JBoss.org
> would
> | >> also mind to upgrade it to a more recent version it would be even
> | >> better. Also Jira integration may help a lot.
> | >>
> | >> I would just add that if we decide to remove the tag we have to
> | >> change
> | >> also the license information at the beginnig of any file which
> say:
> | >> /* 2
> | >> <
http://fisheye.jboss.org/browse/DNA/trunk/dna-graph/src/main/java/org/jbo...
> | >> >
> | >> * JBoss, Home of Professional Open Source. 3
> | >> <
http://fisheye.jboss.org/browse/DNA/trunk/dna-graph/src/main/java/org/jbo...
> | >> >
> | >> * Copyright 2008, Red Hat Middleware LLC, and individual
> | >> contributors 4
> | >> <
http://fisheye.jboss.org/browse/DNA/trunk/dna-graph/src/main/java/org/jbo...
> | >> >
> | >> * as indicated by the @author tags. See the copyright.txt file in
> | >> the 5
> | >> <
http://fisheye.jboss.org/browse/DNA/trunk/dna-graph/src/main/java/org/jbo...
> | >> >
> | >> * distribution for a full listing of individual contributors.
> | >>
> | >
> | > Yes, we'd have to update the headers.
> | >
> | > Best regards,
> | >
> | > Randall
> | >
> |
> |