On 5 April 2011 08:23, Jörg Schaible <[email protected]> wrote: > Henri Yandell wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Henri Yandell <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Phil Steitz <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 4/4/11 2:18 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote: >>>>>>> I thought we had settled on '@author Apache Software Foundation', >>>>>> Did we? TBH I find that pretty pointless and nothing more than noise. >>>>>> I'd be in favor of removing them all together. >>>>> I agree with Torsten. I got stalled in DBCP/pool because at least >>>>> some ppl thought we needed to get permission from all of the long >>>>> gone @authors to nuke their tags. Personally, I am ready to just >>>>> nuke 'em if others do not object. >>>> >>>> I am +1 for nuking and +1 for documenting the "no @author tags" decision >>> >>> +1, and done for Lang. >> >> Btw: >> >> for i in `find . -type f -name '*.java'`; do (echo 'g/@author/d'; echo >> 'w') | ed $i; done >> >> and check with svn diff of course :) > > sed -i -s -e '/@author/d' `find . -type f -name '*.java'` > > SCNR :)
+1 to removing @author tags, but I think the removed names should be added to the developer / contributor list or a readme file somewhere. Even if their code has been completely replaced, they have participated in the development of the component. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
