Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify contributors vs. developers use #16

Open
jouvin opened this issue Jul 2, 2014 · 17 comments
Open

Clarify contributors vs. developers use #16

jouvin opened this issue Jul 2, 2014 · 17 comments
Assignees

Comments

@jouvin
Copy link
Contributor

jouvin commented Jul 2, 2014

In a few pom.xml that I looked at recently, I saw that people who contributed to a Quattor component tended to add themselves as contributors. But it looks like we don't do anything with contributors (apart keeping track of them into the pom.xml file). Sometimes, someone gets added as a developer which is added in the file header (after the licence) for most components. Do we really want a difference? Should we document some guidelines about whether you are added as one or the other? Should credit to contributors appear somewhere?

@jouvin jouvin added this to the 14.8 milestone Jul 2, 2014
@jrha
Copy link
Member

jrha commented Jul 3, 2014

It seems rather pointless to distinguish between the two, maintainer is clearly a special role, but developer and contributor are the same in my mind.

@ned21
Copy link
Contributor

ned21 commented Jul 3, 2014

Agreed.

@jrha
Copy link
Member

jrha commented Jul 22, 2014

So we have agreed to stop using "contributor", we should new issues against repos to move them to be listed as "developers".

Where should be publish the guidance on this?

@ned21
Copy link
Contributor

ned21 commented Jul 22, 2014

In the "how to write/maintain a component" doc. Which should link from https://trac.lal.in2p3.fr/Quattor/wiki/Development/Code but I can't currently see it. :(

@jouvin
Copy link
Contributor Author

jouvin commented Jul 22, 2014

@ned21: it works for me! What's your problem?

@jouvin
Copy link
Contributor Author

jouvin commented Jul 22, 2014

Back on the original topic, I'd a look at what is expected by the quattor-build-maven plugin and I am not sure this is a good idea to deprecate contributors without changing the plugin: contributors are used if they have the role 'author' to build the author list (that is added at the top of almost all files). Other contributors are ignored. On the other hand, developers are used to build the "current developers" list.

I'd suggest cleaning up the plugin before pushing any change in the pom files. I see several alternatives:

  1. Remove contributors, add the role to developers (if supported by maven) and fix the plugin to look at authors in this place.
  2. remove developers, fix the plugin to use contributors without author role as current developers, authors being listed only as authors even if they are active developers.
  3. Fix the plugin to add developers and contributors without the author role to the current developers list.
  4. Enhance the plugin to produce a 3d cateogory, "past developers" that will be the contributors without the author role and add a ${past_developers}to files.

My preference is probably the last choice with a variant that would be to support author role both for developers and contributors (if allowed by Maven) and add all developers (authors or not) to the "current developers" list and all contributors to the "past developers" list.

@ned21
Copy link
Contributor

ned21 commented Jul 22, 2014

@jouvin - oh, it's labelled "CodingStyle". I think I was looking/scanning for a different name.

I dislike "past_developers" - it suggests someone has to decide whether they are being active and then get moved somewhere else when they are no longer active. I think we want to model two distinct concepts:

  1. Everyone who has ever contributed to this code base. That might include non-code patches like documentation but I am fine with those people being labelled "developer" or "contributor" or "author".
  2. The person or organisation who are currently actively maintaining this code. Almost certainly a subset of (1) since the mere act of updating the pom file with your name makes you a contributor/developer/author.

I haven't looked at the maven plugin to see what it currently supports but in general, the simpler the better I think.

@jouvin
Copy link
Contributor Author

jouvin commented Jul 22, 2014

I've had a look: there is no problem to define the author role attached to developers too.

I'm fine with your proposal: keep things simple. After thinking again, I'd suggest what is in fact the easiest in terms of editing required: change only the plugin, keep the source files as they are. The changes that I suggest are:

  1. Treat developers and contributors interchangeably: just merge their contents. Both for developers and authors.
  2. Replace the text "Current developers" that is put in the large files by "Contributors" and add everybody, including authors.
  3. In authors, keep the limited list of people that wrote the first version or did a major architecture evolution (as an example, I don't consider myself as a ncm-cdispd author despite the total rewrite I did as I didn't change the architecture). For the record, "Authors" is just a list of name, without emails. If you don't want to see "Authors" appearing in a module, it is enough to remove all author roles (we may have to check that the plugin doesn't insert an empty "Author:" line but this should be easy to fix).

@jrha
Copy link
Member

jrha commented Aug 18, 2014

Sounds good to me.

@jrha
Copy link
Member

jrha commented Aug 26, 2014

Bumping to 14.10, this won't get fixed this week.

@jrha jrha modified the milestones: 14.8, 14.10 Aug 26, 2014
@jrha jrha modified the milestones: 14.12, 14.10 Oct 1, 2014
@jrha
Copy link
Member

jrha commented Oct 1, 2014

Bumped to 14.12 at workshop.

@jrha
Copy link
Member

jrha commented Jan 7, 2015

So this is clarified, now it just needs to be implemented.

@jouvin
Copy link
Contributor Author

jouvin commented Jan 7, 2015

I thought I'll be able to work on it for this release but this will have to be the next one...

@jrha
Copy link
Member

jrha commented Jan 7, 2015

No worries, it's not really urgent, just untidy

@jouvin
Copy link
Contributor Author

jouvin commented May 4, 2015

I'm afraid that this will be again for next release... Would be good to do it but really low priority for me...

@jouvin jouvin modified the milestones: 15.6, 15.4 May 4, 2015
@jouvin jouvin assigned jouvin and unassigned piojo-zz May 4, 2015
@jrha jrha added this to the 15.8 milestone Jun 2, 2015
@jrha jrha removed this from the 15.6 milestone Jun 2, 2015
@jrha jrha modified the milestones: 16.2, 15.12 Dec 2, 2015
@jrha jrha removed this from the 16.2 milestone Jan 12, 2016
@jouvin jouvin added this to the 17.3 milestone Mar 4, 2017
@jrha
Copy link
Member

jrha commented Mar 27, 2017

@jouvin does the milestone mean that this is now implemented?

@jouvin jouvin removed this from the 17.3 milestone Mar 27, 2017
@jouvin
Copy link
Contributor Author

jouvin commented Mar 27, 2017

Sorry, I probably did something wrong setting the milestone... No intent to work on this in the short term...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants