You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jspwiki.apache.org by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com> on 2008/03/29 22:17:20 UTC
Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Hi ho folks!
I created the 2.6 branch, and also tagged 2.6.2 in the repository.
The trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
I will make the 2.6.2 release later, either today or tomorrow. I
have some connectivity issues...
A couple of rules towards 2.8, to remind you of the discussions that
we've had previously:
* The goal if 2.8 is to be an apachified version of 2.6 (with bug
fixes and the odd functionality upgrade).
* Java 5 code is now allowed - however, please do not modify public
APIs. 2.8 needs to be compatible with the 2.x series. But feel free
to refactor an odd loop or two.
* All code must now be licensed under Apache 2.0 license. All new
files should have the new copyright.
* Code needs also to be attributed to the ASF - so no more @author -
tags.
* IMPORTANT! We need to double-check each source file that we
actually can move the copyright. We can't go and just blanket-change
all files from LGPL to ASF, because I have not yet been confirmed
that all necessary agreements have been received by the ASF. So, if
you start changing the copyright preambles, please double-check with
the list at jspwiki.org (ApacheRelicensing page) that the persons
mentioned in the source code have actually been confirmed as having
the CLA on file (the @author tags will come in handy). If you are
uncertain, leave it be, and we'll get back to those later on.
/Janne
Re: @author tags (was Re: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.)
Posted by Murray Altheim <mu...@altheim.com>.
Christian Geisert wrote:
> Janne Jalkanen schrieb:
>>
>> That is my understanding, yes. Perhaps our mentors can tell us more?
>
> Not that I'm a mentor ... The ASF board's recommendation is to remove
> individual authors tag but it's up to the PMC to make the decision (to
> use author tags or not).
>
> The following old mail puts it nicely why it should be done:
> http://marc.info/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=107788069123268&w=2
I can't say I disagree with much of what is stated in that message, but
it doesn't really counter what I'd written. I do find it telling that
the person that Dirk-Willem is answering in that message happens to be
Conal Tuohy, a friend of mine who happens to share a very similar
technical background as myself (and is a co-developer on the TM4J Topic
Maps engine, as well as also a Topic Maps expert).
We both value and actively work with metadata.
But enough said. I'd prefer that the @author tags remain, but as I
wrote in my first message, I didn't think it worth arguing with the
ASF over this.
Murray
...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray07 at altheim.com> === = =
http://www.altheim.com/murray/ = = ===
SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk = = = =
Boundless wind and moon - the eye within eyes,
Inexhaustible heaven and earth - the light beyond light,
The willow dark, the flower bright - ten thousand houses,
Knock at any door - there's one who will respond.
-- The Blue Cliff Record
@author tags (was Re: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.)
Posted by Christian Geisert <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>.
Janne Jalkanen schrieb:
>
> That is my understanding, yes. Perhaps our mentors can tell us more?
Not that I'm a mentor ... The ASF board's recommendation is to remove
individual authors tag but it's up to the PMC to make the decision (to
use author tags or not).
The following old mail puts it nicely why it should be done:
http://marc.info/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=107788069123268&w=2
--
Christian
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>.
I tend to agree with Dave, Craig and Janne.
Anyone else good arguments or experiences ?
Should we vote ?
If it is common practice in many other (ASF) projects, I think we should do
the same.
Harry
2008/3/31, Dave Wolf <da...@gmail.com>:
>
> IMHO, if the rest of Apache projects don't use the author tags (whether it
> is enforced or not), then for consistency we shouldn't either. It would be
> confusing to new folks.
>
> Additionally, (again opinion) an open source project should not be tied to
> individuals, so I agree with Janne that questions should go to the lists.
> If
> someone who has knowledge is still active then they can respond. If the
> author / knowledgeable person is no longer active, then the absence of a
> response might be informative to the wider community.
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > I think we shouldn't dictate right now, how to deal with those
> conflicting
> > situations.
> > Is it very likely to occur ?
> > If it's not strictly necessary to make the choice now, I think we should
> > let
> > it free.
> >
> > But if anyone else on the list has a good reason to choose for an all-on
> > or
> > all-off, please speak up.
> >
> > regards,
> > Harry
> >
> > 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
> > >
> > >
> > > Then what do we do with new people if some of them insist to have the
> > > @author tag and some don't?
> > >
> > >
> > > /Janne
> > >
> > >
> > > On 31 Mar 2008, at 19:58, Harry Metske wrote:
> > > > Although I'm not a committer I'd like to comment :
> > > > I think both of you are right, there is code that is submitted
> > > > initially
> > > > fairly complete, and is not patched much afterwards, and if it is
> > > > patched,
> > > > it is only small bug fixes. In those cases you would want to keep
> the
> > > > @author tags.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand there is code that is initially submitted as a
> > > > simple
> > > > first prototype, and is afterwards greatly enhance by others. In
> > > > those cases
> > > > you should remove the @author tags.
> > > >
> > > > If it is not exactly mandated by ASF how to deal with, let everyone
> > > > decide
> > > > for himself how to handle it, and you don't have to handle every
> > > > piece of
> > > > code the same, for some pieces keep your @author tag, for others
> > > > remove them
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > How about that, everybody happy ?
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > Harry
> > > >
> > > > 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
> > > >>
> > > >>>> Case in point: The author of LuceneSearchProvider has not
> > > >>>> contributed anything in what, two years? Yet he still stands in
> > > >>>> as the @author. Would you go to him to ask for help, or should
> > > >>>> you go to the mailing list?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'd ask the list, but I would likewise *know* that the author
> hasn't
> > > >>> been seen for two years, information that would be lost if the
> > > >>> tag had
> > > >>> been removed.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> The @author tag does not encode that information. Therefore,
> nothing
> > > >> would be lost, if it were removed (and it might probably be a good
> > > >> idea to remove it at that stage).
> > > >>
> > > >> The code should really stand on its own legs.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> You're saying you have your name on code you don't understand?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes. Other people have modified code for which I am still the
> > > >> @author, and I can't really claim that I know what that code does
> > > >> anymore... And I'm pretty sure I have modified a lot of the code
> > > >> that other people claim to be @author of, and they no longer have
> any
> > > >> idea what is going on.
> > > >>
> > > >> That's how it goes with projects that have been running for nearly
> > > >> seven years now.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> /Janne
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > met vriendelijke groet,
> > > > Harry Metske
> > > > Telnr. +31-548-512395
> > > > Mobile +31-6-51898081
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > met vriendelijke groet,
> > Harry Metske
> > Telnr. +31-548-512395
> > Mobile +31-6-51898081
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Wolf
> H: 303-377-9537
> M: 303-956-9106
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsMumUEPMCY Donate to VoteVets
>
> "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
> matter."
> --Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
>
--
met vriendelijke groet,
Harry Metske
Telnr. +31-548-512395
Mobile +31-6-51898081
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
> This I believe has been answered several times. As Andrew just
> replied,
None of the explanations make sense to me, hence "I do not understand".
But whatever. I will remove my own @author tags, and leave everyone
else's be. You can remove your own authorship if you like.
/Janne
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Murray Altheim <mu...@altheim.com>.
Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>
> I am totally uncertain as to what the @authorship really signifies or
> what the benefit of it is.
[...]
> So what is the *real* use of knowing the original author of the code
> which has been rewritten a dozen times over - or someone who has not
> contributed in five years and nobody knows how to contact anymore?
This I believe has been answered several times. As Andrew just replied,
> An "author," it seems to me, is the person (or person) who did the
> preponderance of the work initially, or as part of an enhancement. By
> "the work," I mean the conception, design, coding, test-case writing and
> debugging. That rules out bug-fixing, unless the bug was so gnarly that
> it necessitated a gut-rewrite or major refactoring. It also rules out
> Javadoc tweaks.
[...]
> Thus: if you design, write/enhance code, and write unit tests, you might
> be an author. If you fix a bug, you probably aren't.
And as I wrote:
> the original author of a class is the one identified in the @author tag,
> with the understanding of what that means, i.e., that that does not (nor
> would anyone believe) include everyone who has touched that file. It does
> (as I wrote) state who initially wrote it, who knew the reason for it, and
> who is most likely (if they are still around) to understand it. [...] If
> I note that the person identified in the @author tag hasn't been seen for
> two years, then I would expect that I'd be mostly on my own. It is in
> either case valuable information.
We *all* understand that for any given file it may have been touched and
modified by many people over time. The @author tag does not identify them,
it merely identifies the originating author, or someone who has made a
very significant alteration to the code, not bug fixes or changes to the
documentation. As you wrote, the SVN logs provide that information.
And whatever might be deemed authoritive, from the Java site:
"You can provide one @author tag, multiple @author tags, or no @author
tags. In these days of the community process when development of new
APIs is an open, joint effort, the JSR can be consider the author for
new packages at the package level. For example, the new package
java.nio has "@author JSR-51 Expert Group" at the package level. Then
individual programmers can be assigned to @author at the class level.
As this tag can only be applied at the overview, package and class
level, the tag applies only to those who make significant contributions
to the design or implementation, and so would not ordinarily include
technical writers."
"The @author tag is not critical, because it is not included when
generating the API specification, and so it is seen only by those
viewing the source code. (Version history can also be used for
determining contributors for internal purposes.)" [1]
So it would seem that at the class level, an @author tag is considered
appropriate, even with community projects, with the version history
providing the who's-who on bug fixes and individual, minor changes. As
according to Sun.
----
I think it would have been more fair to simply state that you disagree
with their use; there has been *plenty* of explanation on the list of
how some of us use and value the information in @author tags, and how
they can be used effectively (knowing their limitations), even in the
case when authors/contributors are no longer around (again, that is
also valuable information).
And if I'm being fair I'll also add that (as an author) I *do* find it
quite offensive when people remove my name from things I've written
and bothered to sign, particularly against my wishes -- and believe
me, I'm hardly in this for the "fame".
But if someone is encouraged to contribute to a project because they do
have the possibility of putting their name on something, that's great,
we can always use more contributors. [And this is of course not a call
to have people abuse @author tags -- there is an acceptable use most
everyone would agree upon, as described previously and above.]
Murray
[1] http://java.sun.com/j2se/javadoc/writingdoccomments/index.html#@author
...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray07 at altheim.com> === = =
http://www.altheim.com/murray/ = = ===
SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk = = = =
Boundless wind and moon - the eye within eyes,
Inexhaustible heaven and earth - the light beyond light,
The willow dark, the flower bright - ten thousand houses,
Knock at any door - there's one who will respond.
-- The Blue Cliff Record
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
Hardy har :-)
No. So what is the *real* use of knowing the original author of the
code which has been rewritten a dozen times over - or someone who has
not contributed in five years and nobody knows how to contact anymore?
/Janne
On 31 Mar 2008, at 22:40, Andrew Jaquith wrote:
> The smartass reply is, "authorship and ownership are two different
> things." :) It's not an @owner tag, or a @currentmaintainer tag, is
> it?
>
> On Mar 31, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>> For example: I did a bunch of re-writing on MailUtil about 6
>>> months ago that added JNDI features, completely re-factored the
>>> main processing methods, and added several private functions. I
>>> changed, touched, and re-wrote 80% of the code. For that reason,
>>> I added myself as an author.
>>
>> If you've touched so much of the code, why don't you then remove
>> the other authors? They no longer have any relevance in the
>> actual authorship of the current file...
>>
>> I am totally uncertain as to what the @authorship really signifies
>> or what the benefit of it is.
>>
>> /Janne
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Andrew Jaquith <an...@mac.com>.
The smartass reply is, "authorship and ownership are two different
things." :) It's not an @owner tag, or a @currentmaintainer tag, is it?
On Mar 31, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>> For example: I did a bunch of re-writing on MailUtil about 6 months
>> ago that added JNDI features, completely re-factored the main
>> processing methods, and added several private functions. I changed,
>> touched, and re-wrote 80% of the code. For that reason, I added
>> myself as an author.
>
> If you've touched so much of the code, why don't you then remove the
> other authors? They no longer have any relevance in the actual
> authorship of the current file...
>
> I am totally uncertain as to what the @authorship really signifies
> or what the benefit of it is.
>
> /Janne
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
> For example: I did a bunch of re-writing on MailUtil about 6 months
> ago that added JNDI features, completely re-factored the main
> processing methods, and added several private functions. I changed,
> touched, and re-wrote 80% of the code. For that reason, I added
> myself as an author.
If you've touched so much of the code, why don't you then remove the
other authors? They no longer have any relevance in the actual
authorship of the current file...
I am totally uncertain as to what the @authorship really signifies or
what the benefit of it is.
/Janne
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Andrew Jaquith <an...@mac.com>.
If "what's an author?" is the only issue we need to settle, that's
pretty easy.
An "author," it seems to me, is the person (or person) who did the
preponderance of the work initially, or as part of an enhancement. By
"the work," I mean the conception, design, coding, test-case writing
and debugging. That rules out bug-fixing, unless the bug was so gnarly
that it necessitated a gut-rewrite or major refactoring. It also rules
out Javadoc tweaks.
For example: I did a bunch of re-writing on MailUtil about 6 months
ago that added JNDI features, completely re-factored the main
processing methods, and added several private functions. I changed,
touched, and re-wrote 80% of the code. For that reason, I added myself
as an author.
But just as you have, I've also touched many many classes to fix bug
here and there. I can't think of a single case where it seemed
appropriate to add myself as an author.
Thus: if you design, write/enhance code, and write unit tests, you
might be an author. If you fix a bug, you probably aren't.
Andrew
On Mar 31, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>
> But again, how to treat patch contributions? Whoever applies the
> patch decides whether to take in the @author-tags? Where do we draw
> a line if someone sends on a three-line patch, one of which is the
> @author?
>
> Apache is a high-profile society, and people will want to have their
> name associated with it.
>
> /Janne
>
> On 31 Mar 2008, at 21:33, Andrew Jaquith wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> The changes we're talking about beg the question: "what's the
>> problem we are trying to solve?"
>>
>> In an earlier e-mail, I noted that the "we need to do what Apache
>> does" argument is bogus because Apache projects DO use @author
>> tags... or putting it another way, they don't remove them
>> consistently. I'm happy to furnish dozens, if not hundreds, of
>> examples of @author tags in the Tomcat project if you need further
>> convincing.
>>
>> Equally bogus is the "the authors might get sued if we leave them
>> in" argument, because it ignores the reality of how modern e-
>> discovery is done. There are lots of ways to find people to sue,
>> for example trolling through the jspwiki-dev mailing list.
>>
>> The "we are a community so we have to release community projects
>> without attribution" reason is NOT bogus, but it IS mighty
>> presumptive. I joined the JSPWiki dev team to have fun and make a
>> personal difference, not because I wanted to be part of Apache PER
>> SE (though I like that too).
>>
>> Here's the bottom line. There are two geniune, defensible reasons
>> for keeping @author tags in the code:
>> - Personal attribution/pride
>> - Helping to establish expertise ("archaeology") for fixes, in
>> combination with commit tags
>>
>> There are also two geniune, defensible reasons to remove them:
>> - When lineage of authorship is diffuse, or uncertain
>> - When an author does not want to attract unwanted e-mails about
>> the code
>>
>> I seems to me that these reasons all point to personal decisions,
>> and should be made at time of commit. So I agree with Harry. I
>> don't think this is something we should legislate. The list of
>> authors is quite small, and the committers even smaller. It seems
>> to me a laissez-faire policy would work best.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On Mar 31, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Dave Wolf wrote:
>>> IMHO, if the rest of Apache projects don't use the author tags
>>> (whether it
>>> is enforced or not), then for consistency we shouldn't either. It
>>> would be
>>> confusing to new folks.
>>>
>>> Additionally, (again opinion) an open source project should not be
>>> tied to
>>> individuals, so I agree with Janne that questions should go to the
>>> lists. If
>>> someone who has knowledge is still active then they can respond.
>>> If the
>>> author / knowledgeable person is no longer active, then the
>>> absence of a
>>> response might be informative to the wider community.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Harry Metske <harry.metske@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we shouldn't dictate right now, how to deal with those
>>>> conflicting
>>>> situations.
>>>> Is it very likely to occur ?
>>>> If it's not strictly necessary to make the choice now, I think we
>>>> should
>>>> let
>>>> it free.
>>>>
>>>> But if anyone else on the list has a good reason to choose for an
>>>> all-on
>>>> or
>>>> all-off, please speak up.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Harry
>>>>
>>>> 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then what do we do with new people if some of them insist to
>>>>> have the
>>>>> @author tag and some don't?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 31 Mar 2008, at 19:58, Harry Metske wrote:
>>>>>> Although I'm not a committer I'd like to comment :
>>>>>> I think both of you are right, there is code that is submitted
>>>>>> initially
>>>>>> fairly complete, and is not patched much afterwards, and if it is
>>>>>> patched,
>>>>>> it is only small bug fixes. In those cases you would want to
>>>>>> keep the
>>>>>> @author tags.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand there is code that is initially submitted as a
>>>>>> simple
>>>>>> first prototype, and is afterwards greatly enhance by others. In
>>>>>> those cases
>>>>>> you should remove the @author tags.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it is not exactly mandated by ASF how to deal with, let
>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>> decide
>>>>>> for himself how to handle it, and you don't have to handle every
>>>>>> piece of
>>>>>> code the same, for some pieces keep your @author tag, for others
>>>>>> remove them
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about that, everybody happy ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Case in point: The author of LuceneSearchProvider has not
>>>>>>>>> contributed anything in what, two years? Yet he still
>>>>>>>>> stands in
>>>>>>>>> as the @author. Would you go to him to ask for help, or
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> you go to the mailing list?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd ask the list, but I would likewise *know* that the author
>>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>>> been seen for two years, information that would be lost if the
>>>>>>>> tag had
>>>>>>>> been removed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The @author tag does not encode that information. Therefore,
>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>> would be lost, if it were removed (and it might probably be a
>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>> idea to remove it at that stage).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The code should really stand on its own legs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're saying you have your name on code you don't understand?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. Other people have modified code for which I am still the
>>>>>>> @author, and I can't really claim that I know what that code
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> anymore... And I'm pretty sure I have modified a lot of the
>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>> that other people claim to be @author of, and they no longer
>>>>>>> have any
>>>>>>> idea what is going on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's how it goes with projects that have been running for
>>>>>>> nearly
>>>>>>> seven years now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> met vriendelijke groet,
>>>>>> Harry Metske
>>>>>> Telnr. +31-548-512395
>>>>>> Mobile +31-6-51898081
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> met vriendelijke groet,
>>>> Harry Metske
>>>> Telnr. +31-548-512395
>>>> Mobile +31-6-51898081
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Wolf
>>> H: 303-377-9537
>>> M: 303-956-9106
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsMumUEPMCY Donate to VoteVets
>>>
>>> "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
>>> matter."
>>> --Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
>
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
But again, how to treat patch contributions? Whoever applies the
patch decides whether to take in the @author-tags? Where do we draw
a line if someone sends on a three-line patch, one of which is the
@author?
Apache is a high-profile society, and people will want to have their
name associated with it.
/Janne
On 31 Mar 2008, at 21:33, Andrew Jaquith wrote:
> Folks,
>
> The changes we're talking about beg the question: "what's the
> problem we are trying to solve?"
>
> In an earlier e-mail, I noted that the "we need to do what Apache
> does" argument is bogus because Apache projects DO use @author
> tags... or putting it another way, they don't remove them
> consistently. I'm happy to furnish dozens, if not hundreds, of
> examples of @author tags in the Tomcat project if you need further
> convincing.
>
> Equally bogus is the "the authors might get sued if we leave them
> in" argument, because it ignores the reality of how modern e-
> discovery is done. There are lots of ways to find people to sue,
> for example trolling through the jspwiki-dev mailing list.
>
> The "we are a community so we have to release community projects
> without attribution" reason is NOT bogus, but it IS mighty
> presumptive. I joined the JSPWiki dev team to have fun and make a
> personal difference, not because I wanted to be part of Apache PER
> SE (though I like that too).
>
> Here's the bottom line. There are two geniune, defensible reasons
> for keeping @author tags in the code:
> - Personal attribution/pride
> - Helping to establish expertise ("archaeology") for fixes, in
> combination with commit tags
>
> There are also two geniune, defensible reasons to remove them:
> - When lineage of authorship is diffuse, or uncertain
> - When an author does not want to attract unwanted e-mails about
> the code
>
> I seems to me that these reasons all point to personal decisions,
> and should be made at time of commit. So I agree with Harry. I
> don't think this is something we should legislate. The list of
> authors is quite small, and the committers even smaller. It seems
> to me a laissez-faire policy would work best.
>
> Andrew
>
> On Mar 31, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Dave Wolf wrote:
>> IMHO, if the rest of Apache projects don't use the author tags
>> (whether it
>> is enforced or not), then for consistency we shouldn't either. It
>> would be
>> confusing to new folks.
>>
>> Additionally, (again opinion) an open source project should not be
>> tied to
>> individuals, so I agree with Janne that questions should go to the
>> lists. If
>> someone who has knowledge is still active then they can respond.
>> If the
>> author / knowledgeable person is no longer active, then the
>> absence of a
>> response might be informative to the wider community.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Harry Metske
>> <ha...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we shouldn't dictate right now, how to deal with those
>>> conflicting
>>> situations.
>>> Is it very likely to occur ?
>>> If it's not strictly necessary to make the choice now, I think we
>>> should
>>> let
>>> it free.
>>>
>>> But if anyone else on the list has a good reason to choose for an
>>> all-on
>>> or
>>> all-off, please speak up.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Harry
>>>
>>> 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then what do we do with new people if some of them insist to
>>>> have the
>>>> @author tag and some don't?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /Janne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 31 Mar 2008, at 19:58, Harry Metske wrote:
>>>>> Although I'm not a committer I'd like to comment :
>>>>> I think both of you are right, there is code that is submitted
>>>>> initially
>>>>> fairly complete, and is not patched much afterwards, and if it is
>>>>> patched,
>>>>> it is only small bug fixes. In those cases you would want to
>>>>> keep the
>>>>> @author tags.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand there is code that is initially submitted as a
>>>>> simple
>>>>> first prototype, and is afterwards greatly enhance by others. In
>>>>> those cases
>>>>> you should remove the @author tags.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is not exactly mandated by ASF how to deal with, let
>>>>> everyone
>>>>> decide
>>>>> for himself how to handle it, and you don't have to handle every
>>>>> piece of
>>>>> code the same, for some pieces keep your @author tag, for others
>>>>> remove them
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> How about that, everybody happy ?
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Harry
>>>>>
>>>>> 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Case in point: The author of LuceneSearchProvider has not
>>>>>>>> contributed anything in what, two years? Yet he still
>>>>>>>> stands in
>>>>>>>> as the @author. Would you go to him to ask for help, or should
>>>>>>>> you go to the mailing list?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd ask the list, but I would likewise *know* that the author
>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>> been seen for two years, information that would be lost if the
>>>>>>> tag had
>>>>>>> been removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The @author tag does not encode that information. Therefore,
>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>> would be lost, if it were removed (and it might probably be a
>>>>>> good
>>>>>> idea to remove it at that stage).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The code should really stand on its own legs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're saying you have your name on code you don't understand?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. Other people have modified code for which I am still the
>>>>>> @author, and I can't really claim that I know what that code does
>>>>>> anymore... And I'm pretty sure I have modified a lot of the code
>>>>>> that other people claim to be @author of, and they no longer
>>>>>> have any
>>>>>> idea what is going on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's how it goes with projects that have been running for
>>>>>> nearly
>>>>>> seven years now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> met vriendelijke groet,
>>>>> Harry Metske
>>>>> Telnr. +31-548-512395
>>>>> Mobile +31-6-51898081
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> met vriendelijke groet,
>>> Harry Metske
>>> Telnr. +31-548-512395
>>> Mobile +31-6-51898081
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Wolf
>> H: 303-377-9537
>> M: 303-956-9106
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsMumUEPMCY Donate to VoteVets
>>
>> "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
>> matter."
>> --Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Andrew Jaquith <an...@mac.com>.
Folks,
The changes we're talking about beg the question: "what's the problem
we are trying to solve?"
In an earlier e-mail, I noted that the "we need to do what Apache
does" argument is bogus because Apache projects DO use @author tags...
or putting it another way, they don't remove them consistently. I'm
happy to furnish dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of @author tags
in the Tomcat project if you need further convincing.
Equally bogus is the "the authors might get sued if we leave them in"
argument, because it ignores the reality of how modern e-discovery is
done. There are lots of ways to find people to sue, for example
trolling through the jspwiki-dev mailing list.
The "we are a community so we have to release community projects
without attribution" reason is NOT bogus, but it IS mighty
presumptive. I joined the JSPWiki dev team to have fun and make a
personal difference, not because I wanted to be part of Apache PER SE
(though I like that too).
Here's the bottom line. There are two geniune, defensible reasons for
keeping @author tags in the code:
- Personal attribution/pride
- Helping to establish expertise ("archaeology") for fixes, in
combination with commit tags
There are also two geniune, defensible reasons to remove them:
- When lineage of authorship is diffuse, or uncertain
- When an author does not want to attract unwanted e-mails about the
code
I seems to me that these reasons all point to personal decisions, and
should be made at time of commit. So I agree with Harry. I don't think
this is something we should legislate. The list of authors is quite
small, and the committers even smaller. It seems to me a laissez-faire
policy would work best.
Andrew
On Mar 31, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Dave Wolf wrote:
> IMHO, if the rest of Apache projects don't use the author tags
> (whether it
> is enforced or not), then for consistency we shouldn't either. It
> would be
> confusing to new folks.
>
> Additionally, (again opinion) an open source project should not be
> tied to
> individuals, so I agree with Janne that questions should go to the
> lists. If
> someone who has knowledge is still active then they can respond. If
> the
> author / knowledgeable person is no longer active, then the absence
> of a
> response might be informative to the wider community.
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Harry Metske
> <ha...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think we shouldn't dictate right now, how to deal with those
>> conflicting
>> situations.
>> Is it very likely to occur ?
>> If it's not strictly necessary to make the choice now, I think we
>> should
>> let
>> it free.
>>
>> But if anyone else on the list has a good reason to choose for an
>> all-on
>> or
>> all-off, please speak up.
>>
>> regards,
>> Harry
>>
>> 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>> Then what do we do with new people if some of them insist to have
>>> the
>>> @author tag and some don't?
>>>
>>>
>>> /Janne
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 Mar 2008, at 19:58, Harry Metske wrote:
>>>> Although I'm not a committer I'd like to comment :
>>>> I think both of you are right, there is code that is submitted
>>>> initially
>>>> fairly complete, and is not patched much afterwards, and if it is
>>>> patched,
>>>> it is only small bug fixes. In those cases you would want to keep
>>>> the
>>>> @author tags.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand there is code that is initially submitted as a
>>>> simple
>>>> first prototype, and is afterwards greatly enhance by others. In
>>>> those cases
>>>> you should remove the @author tags.
>>>>
>>>> If it is not exactly mandated by ASF how to deal with, let everyone
>>>> decide
>>>> for himself how to handle it, and you don't have to handle every
>>>> piece of
>>>> code the same, for some pieces keep your @author tag, for others
>>>> remove them
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> How about that, everybody happy ?
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Harry
>>>>
>>>> 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Case in point: The author of LuceneSearchProvider has not
>>>>>>> contributed anything in what, two years? Yet he still stands in
>>>>>>> as the @author. Would you go to him to ask for help, or should
>>>>>>> you go to the mailing list?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd ask the list, but I would likewise *know* that the author
>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>> been seen for two years, information that would be lost if the
>>>>>> tag had
>>>>>> been removed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The @author tag does not encode that information. Therefore,
>>>>> nothing
>>>>> would be lost, if it were removed (and it might probably be a good
>>>>> idea to remove it at that stage).
>>>>>
>>>>> The code should really stand on its own legs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're saying you have your name on code you don't understand?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Other people have modified code for which I am still the
>>>>> @author, and I can't really claim that I know what that code does
>>>>> anymore... And I'm pretty sure I have modified a lot of the code
>>>>> that other people claim to be @author of, and they no longer
>>>>> have any
>>>>> idea what is going on.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's how it goes with projects that have been running for nearly
>>>>> seven years now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> met vriendelijke groet,
>>>> Harry Metske
>>>> Telnr. +31-548-512395
>>>> Mobile +31-6-51898081
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> met vriendelijke groet,
>> Harry Metske
>> Telnr. +31-548-512395
>> Mobile +31-6-51898081
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Wolf
> H: 303-377-9537
> M: 303-956-9106
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsMumUEPMCY Donate to VoteVets
>
> "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
> matter."
> --Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Dave Wolf <da...@gmail.com>.
IMHO, if the rest of Apache projects don't use the author tags (whether it
is enforced or not), then for consistency we shouldn't either. It would be
confusing to new folks.
Additionally, (again opinion) an open source project should not be tied to
individuals, so I agree with Janne that questions should go to the lists. If
someone who has knowledge is still active then they can respond. If the
author / knowledgeable person is no longer active, then the absence of a
response might be informative to the wider community.
Dave
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think we shouldn't dictate right now, how to deal with those conflicting
> situations.
> Is it very likely to occur ?
> If it's not strictly necessary to make the choice now, I think we should
> let
> it free.
>
> But if anyone else on the list has a good reason to choose for an all-on
> or
> all-off, please speak up.
>
> regards,
> Harry
>
> 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
> >
> >
> > Then what do we do with new people if some of them insist to have the
> > @author tag and some don't?
> >
> >
> > /Janne
> >
> >
> > On 31 Mar 2008, at 19:58, Harry Metske wrote:
> > > Although I'm not a committer I'd like to comment :
> > > I think both of you are right, there is code that is submitted
> > > initially
> > > fairly complete, and is not patched much afterwards, and if it is
> > > patched,
> > > it is only small bug fixes. In those cases you would want to keep the
> > > @author tags.
> > >
> > > On the other hand there is code that is initially submitted as a
> > > simple
> > > first prototype, and is afterwards greatly enhance by others. In
> > > those cases
> > > you should remove the @author tags.
> > >
> > > If it is not exactly mandated by ASF how to deal with, let everyone
> > > decide
> > > for himself how to handle it, and you don't have to handle every
> > > piece of
> > > code the same, for some pieces keep your @author tag, for others
> > > remove them
> > > ?
> > >
> > > How about that, everybody happy ?
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > Harry
> > >
> > > 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
> > >>
> > >>>> Case in point: The author of LuceneSearchProvider has not
> > >>>> contributed anything in what, two years? Yet he still stands in
> > >>>> as the @author. Would you go to him to ask for help, or should
> > >>>> you go to the mailing list?
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd ask the list, but I would likewise *know* that the author hasn't
> > >>> been seen for two years, information that would be lost if the
> > >>> tag had
> > >>> been removed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The @author tag does not encode that information. Therefore, nothing
> > >> would be lost, if it were removed (and it might probably be a good
> > >> idea to remove it at that stage).
> > >>
> > >> The code should really stand on its own legs.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> You're saying you have your name on code you don't understand?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Yes. Other people have modified code for which I am still the
> > >> @author, and I can't really claim that I know what that code does
> > >> anymore... And I'm pretty sure I have modified a lot of the code
> > >> that other people claim to be @author of, and they no longer have any
> > >> idea what is going on.
> > >>
> > >> That's how it goes with projects that have been running for nearly
> > >> seven years now.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> /Janne
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > met vriendelijke groet,
> > > Harry Metske
> > > Telnr. +31-548-512395
> > > Mobile +31-6-51898081
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> met vriendelijke groet,
> Harry Metske
> Telnr. +31-548-512395
> Mobile +31-6-51898081
>
--
Dave Wolf
H: 303-377-9537
M: 303-956-9106
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsMumUEPMCY Donate to VoteVets
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
I am worried about this kind of behaviour:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-community/200306.mbox/%
3C20030609234538.GA22335@lyra.org%3E
"The Subversion community operates the same. We rejected a number of
patches from a guy that wanted his name in there. After he kept
pestering us, we eventually told him flat out, "no." We haven't seen
him since, so in retrospect, I'm glad. It implies that he was seeking
to have his name as part of the project, more than he wanted to help
the project."
/Janne
On 31 Mar 2008, at 20:50, Harry Metske wrote:
> I think we shouldn't dictate right now, how to deal with those
> conflicting
> situations.
> Is it very likely to occur ?
> If it's not strictly necessary to make the choice now, I think we
> should let
> it free.
>
> But if anyone else on the list has a good reason to choose for an
> all-on or
> all-off, please speak up.
>
> regards,
> Harry
>
> 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
>>
>>
>> Then what do we do with new people if some of them insist to have the
>> @author tag and some don't?
>>
>>
>> /Janne
>>
>>
>> On 31 Mar 2008, at 19:58, Harry Metske wrote:
>>> Although I'm not a committer I'd like to comment :
>>> I think both of you are right, there is code that is submitted
>>> initially
>>> fairly complete, and is not patched much afterwards, and if it is
>>> patched,
>>> it is only small bug fixes. In those cases you would want to keep
>>> the
>>> @author tags.
>>>
>>> On the other hand there is code that is initially submitted as a
>>> simple
>>> first prototype, and is afterwards greatly enhance by others. In
>>> those cases
>>> you should remove the @author tags.
>>>
>>> If it is not exactly mandated by ASF how to deal with, let everyone
>>> decide
>>> for himself how to handle it, and you don't have to handle every
>>> piece of
>>> code the same, for some pieces keep your @author tag, for others
>>> remove them
>>> ?
>>>
>>> How about that, everybody happy ?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Harry
>>>
>>> 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>> Case in point: The author of LuceneSearchProvider has not
>>>>>> contributed anything in what, two years? Yet he still stands in
>>>>>> as the @author. Would you go to him to ask for help, or should
>>>>>> you go to the mailing list?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd ask the list, but I would likewise *know* that the author
>>>>> hasn't
>>>>> been seen for two years, information that would be lost if the
>>>>> tag had
>>>>> been removed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The @author tag does not encode that information. Therefore,
>>>> nothing
>>>> would be lost, if it were removed (and it might probably be a good
>>>> idea to remove it at that stage).
>>>>
>>>> The code should really stand on its own legs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You're saying you have your name on code you don't understand?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Other people have modified code for which I am still the
>>>> @author, and I can't really claim that I know what that code does
>>>> anymore... And I'm pretty sure I have modified a lot of the code
>>>> that other people claim to be @author of, and they no longer
>>>> have any
>>>> idea what is going on.
>>>>
>>>> That's how it goes with projects that have been running for nearly
>>>> seven years now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /Janne
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> met vriendelijke groet,
>>> Harry Metske
>>> Telnr. +31-548-512395
>>> Mobile +31-6-51898081
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> met vriendelijke groet,
> Harry Metske
> Telnr. +31-548-512395
> Mobile +31-6-51898081
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Think of this issue in terms of community.
Apache tries to build communities that own code bases. The appearance
of @author tags can defeat this purpose, if people who see the tags
become less inclined to contribute.
If contributors want recognition, there are other ways than @author
tags to get it.
Craig
On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Harry Metske wrote:
> I think we shouldn't dictate right now, how to deal with those
> conflicting
> situations.
> Is it very likely to occur ?
> If it's not strictly necessary to make the choice now, I think we
> should let
> it free.
>
> But if anyone else on the list has a good reason to choose for an
> all-on or
> all-off, please speak up.
>
> regards,
> Harry
>
> 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
>>
>>
>> Then what do we do with new people if some of them insist to have the
>> @author tag and some don't?
>>
>>
>> /Janne
>>
>>
>> On 31 Mar 2008, at 19:58, Harry Metske wrote:
>>> Although I'm not a committer I'd like to comment :
>>> I think both of you are right, there is code that is submitted
>>> initially
>>> fairly complete, and is not patched much afterwards, and if it is
>>> patched,
>>> it is only small bug fixes. In those cases you would want to keep
>>> the
>>> @author tags.
>>>
>>> On the other hand there is code that is initially submitted as a
>>> simple
>>> first prototype, and is afterwards greatly enhance by others. In
>>> those cases
>>> you should remove the @author tags.
>>>
>>> If it is not exactly mandated by ASF how to deal with, let everyone
>>> decide
>>> for himself how to handle it, and you don't have to handle every
>>> piece of
>>> code the same, for some pieces keep your @author tag, for others
>>> remove them
>>> ?
>>>
>>> How about that, everybody happy ?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Harry
>>>
>>> 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>> Case in point: The author of LuceneSearchProvider has not
>>>>>> contributed anything in what, two years? Yet he still stands in
>>>>>> as the @author. Would you go to him to ask for help, or should
>>>>>> you go to the mailing list?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd ask the list, but I would likewise *know* that the author
>>>>> hasn't
>>>>> been seen for two years, information that would be lost if the
>>>>> tag had
>>>>> been removed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The @author tag does not encode that information. Therefore,
>>>> nothing
>>>> would be lost, if it were removed (and it might probably be a good
>>>> idea to remove it at that stage).
>>>>
>>>> The code should really stand on its own legs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You're saying you have your name on code you don't understand?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Other people have modified code for which I am still the
>>>> @author, and I can't really claim that I know what that code does
>>>> anymore... And I'm pretty sure I have modified a lot of the code
>>>> that other people claim to be @author of, and they no longer have
>>>> any
>>>> idea what is going on.
>>>>
>>>> That's how it goes with projects that have been running for nearly
>>>> seven years now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /Janne
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> met vriendelijke groet,
>>> Harry Metske
>>> Telnr. +31-548-512395
>>> Mobile +31-6-51898081
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> met vriendelijke groet,
> Harry Metske
> Telnr. +31-548-512395
> Mobile +31-6-51898081
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>.
I think we shouldn't dictate right now, how to deal with those conflicting
situations.
Is it very likely to occur ?
If it's not strictly necessary to make the choice now, I think we should let
it free.
But if anyone else on the list has a good reason to choose for an all-on or
all-off, please speak up.
regards,
Harry
2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
>
>
> Then what do we do with new people if some of them insist to have the
> @author tag and some don't?
>
>
> /Janne
>
>
> On 31 Mar 2008, at 19:58, Harry Metske wrote:
> > Although I'm not a committer I'd like to comment :
> > I think both of you are right, there is code that is submitted
> > initially
> > fairly complete, and is not patched much afterwards, and if it is
> > patched,
> > it is only small bug fixes. In those cases you would want to keep the
> > @author tags.
> >
> > On the other hand there is code that is initially submitted as a
> > simple
> > first prototype, and is afterwards greatly enhance by others. In
> > those cases
> > you should remove the @author tags.
> >
> > If it is not exactly mandated by ASF how to deal with, let everyone
> > decide
> > for himself how to handle it, and you don't have to handle every
> > piece of
> > code the same, for some pieces keep your @author tag, for others
> > remove them
> > ?
> >
> > How about that, everybody happy ?
> >
> > regards,
> > Harry
> >
> > 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
> >>
> >>>> Case in point: The author of LuceneSearchProvider has not
> >>>> contributed anything in what, two years? Yet he still stands in
> >>>> as the @author. Would you go to him to ask for help, or should
> >>>> you go to the mailing list?
> >>>
> >>> I'd ask the list, but I would likewise *know* that the author hasn't
> >>> been seen for two years, information that would be lost if the
> >>> tag had
> >>> been removed.
> >>
> >>
> >> The @author tag does not encode that information. Therefore, nothing
> >> would be lost, if it were removed (and it might probably be a good
> >> idea to remove it at that stage).
> >>
> >> The code should really stand on its own legs.
> >>
> >>
> >>> You're saying you have your name on code you don't understand?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes. Other people have modified code for which I am still the
> >> @author, and I can't really claim that I know what that code does
> >> anymore... And I'm pretty sure I have modified a lot of the code
> >> that other people claim to be @author of, and they no longer have any
> >> idea what is going on.
> >>
> >> That's how it goes with projects that have been running for nearly
> >> seven years now.
> >>
> >>
> >> /Janne
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > met vriendelijke groet,
> > Harry Metske
> > Telnr. +31-548-512395
> > Mobile +31-6-51898081
>
>
--
met vriendelijke groet,
Harry Metske
Telnr. +31-548-512395
Mobile +31-6-51898081
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
Then what do we do with new people if some of them insist to have the
@author tag and some don't?
/Janne
On 31 Mar 2008, at 19:58, Harry Metske wrote:
> Although I'm not a committer I'd like to comment :
> I think both of you are right, there is code that is submitted
> initially
> fairly complete, and is not patched much afterwards, and if it is
> patched,
> it is only small bug fixes. In those cases you would want to keep the
> @author tags.
>
> On the other hand there is code that is initially submitted as a
> simple
> first prototype, and is afterwards greatly enhance by others. In
> those cases
> you should remove the @author tags.
>
> If it is not exactly mandated by ASF how to deal with, let everyone
> decide
> for himself how to handle it, and you don't have to handle every
> piece of
> code the same, for some pieces keep your @author tag, for others
> remove them
> ?
>
> How about that, everybody happy ?
>
> regards,
> Harry
>
> 2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
>>
>>>> Case in point: The author of LuceneSearchProvider has not
>>>> contributed anything in what, two years? Yet he still stands in
>>>> as the @author. Would you go to him to ask for help, or should
>>>> you go to the mailing list?
>>>
>>> I'd ask the list, but I would likewise *know* that the author hasn't
>>> been seen for two years, information that would be lost if the
>>> tag had
>>> been removed.
>>
>>
>> The @author tag does not encode that information. Therefore, nothing
>> would be lost, if it were removed (and it might probably be a good
>> idea to remove it at that stage).
>>
>> The code should really stand on its own legs.
>>
>>
>>> You're saying you have your name on code you don't understand?
>>
>>
>> Yes. Other people have modified code for which I am still the
>> @author, and I can't really claim that I know what that code does
>> anymore... And I'm pretty sure I have modified a lot of the code
>> that other people claim to be @author of, and they no longer have any
>> idea what is going on.
>>
>> That's how it goes with projects that have been running for nearly
>> seven years now.
>>
>>
>> /Janne
>>
>
>
>
> --
> met vriendelijke groet,
> Harry Metske
> Telnr. +31-548-512395
> Mobile +31-6-51898081
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>.
Although I'm not a committer I'd like to comment :
I think both of you are right, there is code that is submitted initially
fairly complete, and is not patched much afterwards, and if it is patched,
it is only small bug fixes. In those cases you would want to keep the
@author tags.
On the other hand there is code that is initially submitted as a simple
first prototype, and is afterwards greatly enhance by others. In those cases
you should remove the @author tags.
If it is not exactly mandated by ASF how to deal with, let everyone decide
for himself how to handle it, and you don't have to handle every piece of
code the same, for some pieces keep your @author tag, for others remove them
?
How about that, everybody happy ?
regards,
Harry
2008/3/31, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>:
>
> >> Case in point: The author of LuceneSearchProvider has not
> >> contributed anything in what, two years? Yet he still stands in
> >> as the @author. Would you go to him to ask for help, or should
> >> you go to the mailing list?
> >
> > I'd ask the list, but I would likewise *know* that the author hasn't
> > been seen for two years, information that would be lost if the tag had
> > been removed.
>
>
> The @author tag does not encode that information. Therefore, nothing
> would be lost, if it were removed (and it might probably be a good
> idea to remove it at that stage).
>
> The code should really stand on its own legs.
>
>
> > You're saying you have your name on code you don't understand?
>
>
> Yes. Other people have modified code for which I am still the
> @author, and I can't really claim that I know what that code does
> anymore... And I'm pretty sure I have modified a lot of the code
> that other people claim to be @author of, and they no longer have any
> idea what is going on.
>
> That's how it goes with projects that have been running for nearly
> seven years now.
>
>
> /Janne
>
--
met vriendelijke groet,
Harry Metske
Telnr. +31-548-512395
Mobile +31-6-51898081
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
>> Case in point: The author of LuceneSearchProvider has not
>> contributed anything in what, two years? Yet he still stands in
>> as the @author. Would you go to him to ask for help, or should
>> you go to the mailing list?
>
> I'd ask the list, but I would likewise *know* that the author hasn't
> been seen for two years, information that would be lost if the tag had
> been removed.
The @author tag does not encode that information. Therefore, nothing
would be lost, if it were removed (and it might probably be a good
idea to remove it at that stage).
The code should really stand on its own legs.
> You're saying you have your name on code you don't understand?
Yes. Other people have modified code for which I am still the
@author, and I can't really claim that I know what that code does
anymore... And I'm pretty sure I have modified a lot of the code
that other people claim to be @author of, and they no longer have any
idea what is going on.
That's how it goes with projects that have been running for nearly
seven years now.
/Janne
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Murray Altheim <mu...@altheim.com>.
Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>>
>> I don't know anybody who goes to the trouble of reading the SVN logs,
>
> Yes, you do. I completely and utterly rely on them instead of the
> @author-tags to see what happened. The SVN logs say who approved the
> code into the SVN, which means that that person is responsible for the
> code. *Not* the patch submitter (which is what the @author should
> say). Or are you implying that we should blindly accept code which we
> don't understand and defer responsibility to random patch submitters?
No, of course not. To reiterate, I am implying exactly what I wrote: that
the original author of a class is the one identified in the @author tag,
with the understanding of what that means, i.e., that that does not (nor
would anyone believe) include everyone who has touched that file. It does
(as I wrote) state who initially wrote it, who knew the reason for it, and
who is most likely (if they are still around) to understand it. I
understand the value of the SVN logs, but if I want to ask somebody about
the AAA code, I can ask the list, but I can also target Andrew (on the
list) since I know he wrote it. If I note that the person identified in
the @author tag hasn't been seen for two years, then I would expect that
I'd be mostly on my own. It is in either case valuable information.
>> and
>> I think it's not realistic to think anybody who downloads and looks at
>> code is going to do so.
>
> Yes, they will, if there are no @author-tags. And it's better to target
> the mailing list anyway instead of particular people.
As above, I meant on the list.
> Case in point: The author of LuceneSearchProvider has not contributed
> anything in what, two years? Yet he still stands in as the @author.
> Would you go to him to ask for help, or should you go to the mailing list?
I'd ask the list, but I would likewise *know* that the author hasn't
been seen for two years, information that would be lost if the tag had
been removed.
>> It's not that @author identifies every contributor,
>> it identifies someone who knows what the code does, why it was written,
>> and who is most likely to know how to fix or modify it. That is very
>> valuable information, even for Apache projects.
>
> That is not true even for my own code.
You're saying you have your name on code you don't understand?
>> really, really a bad idea to throw out metadata, even if it's not
>> *entirely* accurate (and for @author tags, I'd argue that within
>> limitations, they're largerly accurate for their intended purpose).
>
> Well, I am going to remove my authorship from the code anyway, since
> they mostly bother me instead of giving me any concrete benefits.
Perhaps as lead on this project you have a different perspective. On
other projects I've been involved with the @author tag has been helpful.
Murray
...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray07 at altheim.com> === = =
http://www.altheim.com/murray/ = = ===
SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk = = = =
Boundless wind and moon - the eye within eyes,
Inexhaustible heaven and earth - the light beyond light,
The willow dark, the flower bright - ten thousand houses,
Knock at any door - there's one who will respond.
-- The Blue Cliff Record
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
>>
> I don't know anybody who goes to the trouble of reading the SVN logs,
Yes, you do. I completely and utterly rely on them instead of the
@author-tags to see what happened. The SVN logs say who approved the
code into the SVN, which means that that person is responsible for
the code. *Not* the patch submitter (which is what the @author
should say). Or are you implying that we should blindly accept code
which we don't understand and defer responsibility to random patch
submitters?
> and
> I think it's not realistic to think anybody who downloads and looks at
> code is going to do so.
Yes, they will, if there are no @author-tags. And it's better to
target the mailing list anyway instead of particular people.
Case in point: The author of LuceneSearchProvider has not contributed
anything in what, two years? Yet he still stands in as the @author.
Would you go to him to ask for help, or should you go to the mailing
list?
> It's not that @author identifies every contributor,
> it identifies someone who knows what the code does, why it was
> written,
> and who is most likely to know how to fix or modify it. That is very
> valuable information, even for Apache projects.
That is not true even for my own code.
> really, really a bad idea to throw out metadata, even if it's not
> *entirely* accurate (and for @author tags, I'd argue that within
> limitations, they're largerly accurate for their intended purpose).
Well, I am going to remove my authorship from the code anyway, since
they mostly bother me instead of giving me any concrete benefits.
/Janne
Re: author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Murray Altheim <mu...@altheim.com>.
Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>> I think we may be reading too much into the ASF guidelines by
>> recommending we remove @author tags. I know for sure that Apache is
>> not enforcing this guideline very strictly. For example, look at the
>> author tags for this source file:
>
> It is a strong SHOULD. And I kinda agree with it.
>
>> I agree with Murray: @author tags are valuable because they help
>> identify expertise and knowledge associated with particular bits of
>> code. They are good for "archeology." Removing them would do more harm
>> than good.
>
> I disagree. The SVN log and annotations very clearly spell out who did
> what. Are you sure @author-tags are updated every single time? If the
> file has patches from several dozens of files over several years, who
> really is the author? Is anyone removing @author -tags from code which
> no longer has any pieces of the original contribution left?
I don't know anybody who goes to the trouble of reading the SVN logs, and
I think it's not realistic to think anybody who downloads and looks at
code is going to do so. It's not that @author identifies every contributor,
it identifies someone who knows what the code does, why it was written,
and who is most likely to know how to fix or modify it. That is very
valuable information, even for Apache projects.
> I'm going to remove all @author tags with my name on them anyway and not
> add any new ones. Personally, I would much rather have the team get the
> credit than myself. If anyone needs to point any blaming fingers at
> anyone, the SVN history tells all that is necessary.
>
> To me, the presence of @author-tags is useless metadata, which causes
> more harm than good. Probably because I get all the emails asking for
> help, and I need to constantly defer people to the mailing list.
The thing is, while there are certainly patches and changes made over
time to any file, there is *generally* a principal architect and author
of a file who understands/understood how it fit into the greater picture.
And while it's true that not every author remains part of the project,
for those that do it's invaluable to know who did what. Yes, we should
ask the list, but knowing who wrote the majority of the code for say,
the AAA parts of JSPWiki, or a given plugin, is *very* valuable informa-
tion. As someone who's now been working in libraries for awhile, it's a
really, really a bad idea to throw out metadata, even if it's not
*entirely* accurate (and for @author tags, I'd argue that within
limitations, they're largerly accurate for their intended purpose).
Murray
...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray07 at altheim.com> === = =
http://www.altheim.com/murray/ = = ===
SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk = = = =
Boundless wind and moon - the eye within eyes,
Inexhaustible heaven and earth - the light beyond light,
The willow dark, the flower bright - ten thousand houses,
Knock at any door - there's one who will respond.
-- The Blue Cliff Record
author-tags Was: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
> I think we may be reading too much into the ASF guidelines by
> recommending we remove @author tags. I know for sure that Apache is
> not enforcing this guideline very strictly. For example, look at
> the author tags for this source file:
It is a strong SHOULD. And I kinda agree with it.
> I agree with Murray: @author tags are valuable because they help
> identify expertise and knowledge associated with particular bits of
> code. They are good for "archeology." Removing them would do more
> harm than good.
I disagree. The SVN log and annotations very clearly spell out who
did what. Are you sure @author-tags are updated every single time?
If the file has patches from several dozens of files over several
years, who really is the author? Is anyone removing @author -tags
from code which no longer has any pieces of the original contribution
left?
I'm going to remove all @author tags with my name on them anyway and
not add any new ones. Personally, I would much rather have the team
get the credit than myself. If anyone needs to point any blaming
fingers at anyone, the SVN history tells all that is necessary.
To me, the presence of @author-tags is useless metadata, which causes
more harm than good. Probably because I get all the emails asking
for help, and I need to constantly defer people to the mailing list.
/Janne
Re: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Andrew Jaquith <an...@mac.com>.
I think we may be reading too much into the ASF guidelines by
recommending we remove @author tags. I know for sure that Apache is
not enforcing this guideline very strictly. For example, look at the
author tags for this source file:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/container/tc5.5.x/catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/realm/JAASCallbackHandler.java
(heh)
I agree with Murray: @author tags are valuable because they help
identify expertise and knowledge associated with particular bits of
code. They are good for "archeology." Removing them would do more harm
than good.
On an upbeat note: congrats to the team, collectively, for the 2.6
release. Onwards and upwards to 2.8! I'm going to check in my first
bits (some auth code refactoring) today.
Andrew
On Mar 30, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>
> That is my understanding, yes. Perhaps our mentors can tell us more?
>
> (In any case, you should go to the -user and -dev mailing lists
> instead of the people personally if there is a problem. These are
> ASF projects, not any individual's. I tend to ignore personal
> emails asking talking about JSPWiki these days. Most things are
> better discussed on the mailing list.)
>
> /Janne
>
> On 30 Mar 2008, at 10:35, Murray Altheim wrote:
>> Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>> Hi ho folks!
>> [...]
>>> * Code needs also to be attributed to the ASF - so no more @author
>>> -tags.
>>
>> Is this an Apache rule? If it isn't, I would *much* prefer to keep
>> the
>> author tags (which aren't a copyright issue, they provide necessary
>> and
>> often valuable attribution, e.g., who to go to when there's a
>> problem).
>> I think it'd be a real mistake to remove them if we didn't have to
>> (and
>> if we did, while I know it'd be pointless to argue with the Apache
>> Foundation over this, I do think it's a Bad Idea not to include
>> author
>> information.
>>
>> Murray
>>
>> ...........................................................................
>> Murray Altheim <murray07 at altheim.com>
>> === = =
>> http://www.altheim.com/murray/
>> = = ===
>> SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk
>> = = = =
>>
>> Boundless wind and moon - the eye within eyes,
>> Inexhaustible heaven and earth - the light beyond light,
>> The willow dark, the flower bright - ten thousand houses,
>> Knock at any door - there's one who will respond.
>> -- The Blue Cliff Record
>
Re: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
That is my understanding, yes. Perhaps our mentors can tell us more?
(In any case, you should go to the -user and -dev mailing lists
instead of the people personally if there is a problem. These are
ASF projects, not any individual's. I tend to ignore personal emails
asking talking about JSPWiki these days. Most things are better
discussed on the mailing list.)
/Janne
On 30 Mar 2008, at 10:35, Murray Altheim wrote:
> Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>> Hi ho folks!
> [...]
>> * Code needs also to be attributed to the ASF - so no more @author
>> -tags.
>
> Is this an Apache rule? If it isn't, I would *much* prefer to keep the
> author tags (which aren't a copyright issue, they provide necessary
> and
> often valuable attribution, e.g., who to go to when there's a
> problem).
> I think it'd be a real mistake to remove them if we didn't have to
> (and
> if we did, while I know it'd be pointless to argue with the Apache
> Foundation over this, I do think it's a Bad Idea not to include author
> information.
>
> Murray
>
> ......................................................................
> .....
> Murray Altheim <murray07 at altheim.com>
> === = =
> http://www.altheim.com/murray/
> = = ===
> SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk
> = = = =
>
> Boundless wind and moon - the eye within eyes,
> Inexhaustible heaven and earth - the light beyond light,
> The willow dark, the flower bright - ten thousand houses,
> Knock at any door - there's one who will respond.
> -- The Blue Cliff Record
Re: Trunk is now open for 2.8 stuff.
Posted by Murray Altheim <mu...@altheim.com>.
Janne Jalkanen wrote:
> Hi ho folks!
[...]
> * Code needs also to be attributed to the ASF - so no more @author -tags.
Is this an Apache rule? If it isn't, I would *much* prefer to keep the
author tags (which aren't a copyright issue, they provide necessary and
often valuable attribution, e.g., who to go to when there's a problem).
I think it'd be a real mistake to remove them if we didn't have to (and
if we did, while I know it'd be pointless to argue with the Apache
Foundation over this, I do think it's a Bad Idea not to include author
information.
Murray
...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray07 at altheim.com> === = =
http://www.altheim.com/murray/ = = ===
SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk = = = =
Boundless wind and moon - the eye within eyes,
Inexhaustible heaven and earth - the light beyond light,
The willow dark, the flower bright - ten thousand houses,
Knock at any door - there's one who will respond.
-- The Blue Cliff Record