Thomas Malt wrote:
> The reason for the authors field is to make it easier to keep track of
> the different people who's been messing with the file. Off course a
> 'cvs log' will do the trick, but a glance in the header is easier if
> you're working with the file.
I've worked professionally as a programmer for almost ten years now, and
it is my experience that people in general do not keep information
like this updated very well. I guess they do at NASA for the space
shuttle software, but I haven't seen a lot of other places that do it
consistently over any longer periods.
Obviously it be nice to have it there when you need it, but I think it
is far worse to have outdated information than no info at all. CVS
annotate is very good to see who changed made what, that's what I use.
> That way you can direct questions about stuff directly to the author.
> IMHO we should have an authors field on functions and classes as well.
I've seen that in the code. Again, my guess it'll be hopelessly outdated
in most cases, CVS annotate is the way to go.
Now, doc-strings is an entirely different matter. I've seen you put that
in, and I think we should have more of those + regular comments in the
future. It doesn't hurt to use a nice layout for file and function
> I'd really like it if we could put it back, and for people to maintain
> it when they edit the file (at least major ones). :)
Ok, noted. I'm open to everyone's opinion on this matter. I understand
if people want their names on the files they written ofcourse, I don't
have a problem with that, it's more the maintenance issues I was