Acknowledgements

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> > 
> > Some acknowledgements are fine, I think. This way one knows who to blame or
> > credit. We have lot of them in the source tree, not only in the scripts.  So,
> > I personally would keep them...
> > 
> 
> My concerns are that it tends to imply some sort of "ownership"; that
> when code is changed in it, it could be taken as stepping on someone's
> toes; that there comes a point where so much is changed/added by others
> that it's no longer valid, which means that someone has the touchy
> situation of changing someone else's acknowledgement; maybe it's
> out of place in a group environment.
> 
> Besides, that's what CHANGES is for ;)
> 

Did we (new-httpd) ever decide what to do about this? I think that Randy
somewhat agreed but not sure what others feel... I think that these are some
valid points that should be addressed.
-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   |||   jim@jaguNET.com   |||   http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul,
            cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"

Re: Acknowledgements

[Randy Terbush <ra...@Covalent.NET>]

I would have to agree most with this assessment. We've always had a
someone idealistic view in this group that we are doing it as a group
and the code in general benefits from everyone's involvement here. I
also realize that some people's egos need more stroking than
others. Seems that the CHANGES file is a decent compromise.


Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk> writes:
> Ben Hyde wrote:
> > Yes, names on the code can create an excuse not to dive in and take a
> > wack at things.  But they are not the principle cause of this problem,
> > the principle cause is that bundle of fears.  In my opinion they are a
> > useful tool, a reward if you will, in overcoming that fear.
> 
> Seems to me that what you say is largely true, but either everyone does
> it, or no-one should. Since the tradition in AG has been to _not_ flag
> every change in the code but to flag them in CHANGES instead (with
> attribution) it doesn't seem right or sensible to suddenly start doing
> it differently now.
> 
> Also, attribution in CHANGES gets you the best of both worlds - rewards
> without territorial marking...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ben.
> 
> -- 
> Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686| Apache Group member
> Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org/
> and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |
> A.L. Digital Ltd,     |Apache-SSL author     http://www.apache-ssl.org/
> London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache/

Re: Acknowledgements

[Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com>]

Ben Laurie writes:
>Ben Hyde wrote:
>> Ben Laurie writes:
>> >Also, attribution in CHANGES gets you the best of both worlds - rewards
>> >without territorial marking...
>> 
>> Oh please, when I sign a hunk of code I'm not a dog peeing on a tree,
>> I'm allowing my self a bit of Peter Pan's crow.
>
>Hey, the dog pee idea was yours, not mine.

This is silly and I should resist but in Altavista the term
"territorial marking" is used 99% of the time for a problem with cats,
kittens and puppies.  I had no reason to know what meaning you had in 
mind so I apologize for the presumption.

   - ben hyde

"Communication rests on a foundation of mutual perspective-taking, the 
mechanics of which are poorly understood."

Re: Acknowledgements

[Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>]

Ben Hyde wrote:
> Ben Laurie writes:
> >Also, attribution in CHANGES gets you the best of both worlds - rewards
> >without territorial marking...
> 
> Oh please, when I sign a hunk of code I'm not a dog peeing on a tree,
> I'm allowing my self a bit of Peter Pan's crow.

Hey, the dog pee idea was yours, not mine.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686| Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org/
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |Apache-SSL author     http://www.apache-ssl.org/
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache/

Re: Acknowledgements

[Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com>]

Ben Laurie writes:
>Ben Hyde wrote:
>> Yes, names on the code can create an excuse not to dive in and take a
>> wack at things.  But they are not the principle cause of this problem,
>> the principle cause is that bundle of fears.  In my opinion they are a
>> useful tool, a reward if you will, in overcoming that fear.
>
>Seems to me that what you say is largely true, but either everyone does
>it, or no-one should. Since the tradition in AG has been to _not_ flag
>every change in the code but to flag them in CHANGES instead (with
>attribution) it doesn't seem right or sensible to suddenly start doing
>it differently now.

Fair enough, local custom and all that.  I, of course, wasn't speaking
of signing little changes.  Ralf's thankless and Herculean efforts to
raise the bar in the area of configuration are a fine example.  If he
is proud of the work, then, I'd not deny him the pleasure signing it.
If local custom admires a collective selflessness in the code, well
that's cool.  This world could use a lot more selflessness.

>Also, attribution in CHANGES gets you the best of both worlds - rewards
>without territorial marking...

Oh please, when I sign a hunk of code I'm not a dog peeing on a tree, 
I'm allowing my self a bit of Peter Pan's crow.

 - ben hyde

Re: Acknowledgements

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

Ben Laurie wrote:
> 
> Ben Hyde wrote:
> > Yes, names on the code can create an excuse not to dive in and take a
> > wack at things.  But they are not the principle cause of this problem,
> > the principle cause is that bundle of fears.  In my opinion they are a
> > useful tool, a reward if you will, in overcoming that fear.
> 
> Seems to me that what you say is largely true, but either everyone does
> it, or no-one should. Since the tradition in AG has been to _not_ flag
> every change in the code but to flag them in CHANGES instead (with
> attribution) it doesn't seem right or sensible to suddenly start doing
> it differently now.
> 
> Also, attribution in CHANGES gets you the best of both worlds - rewards
> without territorial marking...

A view of an "outsider" :

I never see the CHANGES file. Never even thought to look in there. For
me, the people who receive "reputation points" for Apache are those
listed at www.apache.org/contributors/. If your name isn't there, sorry,
you lose.

Names in a CHANGES file or within individual files do not confer any
reputation (in my mind) because of the issues raised on this list:
Apache is a group thing, so you can never believe a name within a file
is the "real" contributor for that file. Heck, the initial author might
have written total crap, so the real contributor was actually the person
who got rid of those 12 crasher bugs.

As an outsider, I'd recommend to you guys to forget the names within the
files and the CHANGES file. I'd say they're moot for everybody but you
guys (e.g. to track who probably knows the piece of code the best).

I'd also recommend that you ensure that the Contributors page is
maintained promptly and accurately. That is the page that best provides
the ego boost.

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Re: Acknowledgements

[Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>]

Ben Hyde wrote:
> Yes, names on the code can create an excuse not to dive in and take a
> wack at things.  But they are not the principle cause of this problem,
> the principle cause is that bundle of fears.  In my opinion they are a
> useful tool, a reward if you will, in overcoming that fear.

Seems to me that what you say is largely true, but either everyone does
it, or no-one should. Since the tradition in AG has been to _not_ flag
every change in the code but to flag them in CHANGES instead (with
attribution) it doesn't seem right or sensible to suddenly start doing
it differently now.

Also, attribution in CHANGES gets you the best of both worlds - rewards
without territorial marking...

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686| Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org/
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |Apache-SSL author     http://www.apache-ssl.org/
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache/

Re: Acknowledgements

[Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com>]

On the topic of people stuffing their nom_de_guerre into the noble
sources.  I've had this argument before so here is my rant on
the topic.  You can read the first paragraph and skip the rest.

If you are clear that names on the code are an honoraria and not a
source control lock then things are fine.  You can then encourage
people to sign their work at the routine, and file level - to add
their name when they make significant revisions.  This gives a small
gift to their reputation and increases the quality of the effort all
around.

As labor it has always seems rude, cheap, and greedy that management
didn't want my name confusing their ownership of the code.  That I
would spend months getting some hair ball like buff.c to work in a
reasonable number of cases and the boss would then announce - "I'll
take that, you can go now."  There is one large system I built that
had a policy against this - hundreds of thousands of lines of code and
people there almost don't know who I am!  That hurts.

As a manager I've always encouraged it.  Why wouldn't I want people
to: develop a sense of ownership, pride in the code, and take on some
risk to their reputation when things don't work out.  As a capitalist
I consider it a way to increase lock-in between the developer and the
code so it becomes harder for him to switch to some other bondoggle.

As a user of code I'm always very glad to see an author's name since
it gives me - more than you know - a sense of what to expect.  No
amount of coding conventions can override the deep style of each
programmer.  When I go to work on code has the certain style I want
to stay close to that style as I change it and any hints are a help.
Then of course there is always the hope that i can ask the subtle
question of the author - such as "Is it a good witch or a bad witch
that ap_bnonblock is called only once?"

The only risk I consider credible here is that other developers will
perceive the names on the code as a "no trespassing" sign.  Of course
all working code has an implicit "authorized service personnel only"
sign on it.  The names are not the same as "authorized," no author
want that.  Only the youngest authors working on their first program
would want that.  The most wonderful thing in the world is getting
somebody else to pick up where you left off.

The problem, a central problem, with all mature code is that
developers have a natural reluctance to cross over into it due to:
fear of embarrassment, fear of missing authorization, fear of trespass
on another's turf, fear of having to suffer long lectures on
esoterica, etc., etc.  Grid lock often results.  This really doesn't
have much to do with names on the code.

Yes, names on the code can create an excuse not to dive in and take a
wack at things.  But they are not the principle cause of this problem,
the principle cause is that bundle of fears.  In my opinion they are a
useful tool, a reward if you will, in overcoming that fear.

  - ben