From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 73469 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2017 16:19:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 73368 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jan 2017 16:19:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=surviving, Hx-languages-length:1547, policy X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:18:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FE89C05678C; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:18:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.4]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v0AGIrVP027475; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:18:54 -0500 Subject: Re: GDB attribution policy (Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Add FreeBSD/mips architecture.) To: John Baldwin , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org References: <20161206210015.40422-1-jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20161206210015.40422-3-jhb@FreeBSD.org> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <61e386a9-ad55-5d10-6309-dbe8c6f2102e@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:19:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-01/txt/msg00169.txt.bz2 FYI, I've added this to the wiki now: https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ContributionChecklist#Attribution Thanks, Pedro Alves On 12/16/2016 12:22 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > IMO, "contributed by" "written by", etc. attribution statements are best not > added to source files, and are better placed in the "Contributors" node in > the manual [1], which seems to exist exactly for this purpose. > > I see a few advantages: > > - It ends up surviving even if these new files are deleted in the future. > > - It's discoverable by end users too, unlike some comment deep in some > source file. > > - Doesn't get inaccurate over time, as other contributors touch / rework / add > to / mostly rewrite the code over the years, who understandably won't > remember or won't feel comfortable with touching the original "written by" > notes. > > For similar reasons, a few years back, glibc explicitly stopped accepting > attribution statements in sources, as can be seen in their version of the > contribution checklist [2]. I believe the discussion that led to that glibc > policy started here [3]. > > I've discussed this with other GDB maintainers off list and it seems > there's general agreement to follow such a policy in GDB as well. > > [1] - https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/Contributors.html#Contributors > [2] - https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist#Attribution > [3] - https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-04/msg00339.html