[dna-dev] @author tags in our codebase

[Randall Hauch]

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=8o0YSbiFOY6qrgLC2PnLDQ&q=poisonous+people
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/jboss/dna/common/i18n/I18n.java?r=120
>>
> 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/jboss/dna/graph/GraphI18n.java?r=598#l2 
> >
> * JBoss, Home of Professional Open Source. 3
> <http://fisheye.jboss.org/browse/DNA/trunk/dna-graph/src/main/java/org/jboss/dna/graph/GraphI18n.java?r=598#l3 
> >
> * Copyright 2008, Red Hat Middleware LLC, and individual  
> contributors 4
> <http://fisheye.jboss.org/browse/DNA/trunk/dna-graph/src/main/java/org/jboss/dna/graph/GraphI18n.java?r=598#l4 
> >
> * 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/jboss/dna/graph/GraphI18n.java?r=598#l5 
> >
> * distribution for a full listing of individual contributors.
>

Yes, we'd have to update the headers.

Best regards,

Randall