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&gt; > Subject: Re: [dna-dev] Re: @author tags in our codebase > To: Sergey Litsenko <litsenko_sergey(a)yahoo.com&gt; > 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&gt; 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: &quot;dna-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org&quot; <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 > | > > | > |