It's the internet, nobody ever really goes away. ;)
I will say, this convention makes more sense for a large project like
mediawiki core with many contributors; even more so if some of those
contributors are volunteers or short-term, since the @author tag can help
to track them down absent any long-term association with the WMF. It is
less necessary for a project like parsoid, which is authored in the main by
five or fewer folks.
But I'd support an effort to add @author tags which deference via the wiki
module owners table.
--scott
On Jun 13, 2017 12:59 PM, "Subramanya Sastry" <ssastry(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On 06/13/2017 10:14 AM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Jun 13, 2017 6:24 AM, "Gergo Tisza" <gtisza(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Subramanya Sastry <ssastry(a)wikimedia.org
wrote:
I find these annotations misleading and wonder why they exist and what
purpose they serve.
It can sometimes tell you whom to ask for advice
or reviews. (git log
would too but it's more effort.)
For the record (since one of my patches was specifically mentioned)
Gergo's
reason matches mine. This is common (if informal) practice for a number
of
open source software projects---a way to easily indicate the original
author of the code, as a pointer to who to ask if you've got questions
about it. T
I think the @author tag is at best a documentation hack for this scenario.
What happens when people leave the project or there are more than one
person who understands that code, or expertise shifts with changing
codebase?
It would be better to actually add a documentation line to point to a wiki
page where this information can be found (and kept up to date).
Subbu.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l