[Pulp-dev] remove AUTHORS

[David Davis]

This is @dalley’s response on the PR which I agree with:

I would rather get rid of the AUTHORS entirely and put the documentation
for `git shortlog -sne` elsewhere (or nowhere).

People who want that info should just look at the contributors page for the
repository on github and, if they need the list in text form, `git shortlog
-sn` is very very high in the search rankings for that query.



David

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> You did update the dev guide already. Thank you for pointing that out. I
> was mistaken.
>
> My main thinking is about the copyright which indicates the code is owned
> by the pulp contributors. Having a simple way to provide a definitive
> answer to that question is useful enough to document. An alternative to
> keeping it in the AUTHORS file contents would be to add it somewhere in the
> docs.
>
> What do others want to do?
>
> Thanks all,
> Brian
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Irina Gulina <igulina at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Brian,
>>
>> * the dev-guide doc was already updated in that PR, or do I miss smth?
>> * Does anybody else want the AUTHORS file be updated with smth like "To
>> see the list of contributors run `git shortlog -sne` command?
>> Personally, I think it's not needed.
>> * ok, I will do it for pulp 2 and 3, as soon as we agree on the previous
>> point.
>>
>> Thanks all,
>> Irina
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Brian Bouterse" <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> To: "Daniel Alley" <dalley at redhat.com>
>> Cc: "Pulp-dev" <pulp-dev at redhat.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, 4 April, 2018 5:26:30 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Pulp-dev] remove AUTHORS
>>
>> +1 to removing AUTHORS. I left some requests on the issue:
>>
>> * update some of the necessary docs
>> * replace the AUTHORS content docs for the git shortlog -sne command
>> * to do it for both pulp2 and pulp3.
>>
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3393#issuecomment-378631901
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 10:09 AM, Daniel Alley < dalley at redhat.com >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> +0
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Dana Walker < dawalker at redhat.com >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I like Austin's point about getting to specify contact info for a
>> specific project as I have different emails for different types of
>> contributions myself, but I don't want to have to update things in multiple
>> places down the road when I can just keep track of my listed contact
>> details in my github settings. The same goes for someone who wants privacy
>> and doesn't want their email listed or someone who has changed their name.
>> I created the AUTHORS file for pulp_file recently and had misgivings about
>> whether each of these contributors would have chosen to have the info I put
>> together as their representative contact info, especially since we squashed
>> down to one name and email which involves making some assumptions.
>>
>> I also like Irina's points about redundancy with GitHub's tracking of
>> contributors (though that's a very specific thing that excludes merge
>> commits, and for instance, I have made contributions to pulp through PRs
>> and my name is not listed there), and more importantly, inaccurate and out
>> of date info when hardcoded.
>>
>> I'm +1 to this PR to remove AUTHORS files moving forward.
>>
>> --Dana
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dana Walker
>>
>> Associate Software Engineer
>>
>> Red Hat
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Austin Macdonald < amacdona at redhat.com >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> One reason to keep the AUTHORS file is that it allows contributors to
>> specify their contact info instead of just linking to their GitHub page,
>> were they might not have an email listed.
>>
>> I assume this discussion is restricted to pulp/pulp. The plugins are free
>> to handle however they prefer.
>>
>> Personally, I am fine either way. Remove +0, one less file.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 05:22 Irina Gulina < igulina at redhat.com > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello Pulp Team,
>>
>> Recently, I have opened a PR to remove the AUTHORS file [1], and was
>> suggested to bring it up here.
>> Please let us/me know what you think about it. Any feedback will be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Happy Wednesday,
>> Irina
>>
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3393
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180404/c089feb2/attachment.htm>