Tom Faulhaber <[email protected]> writes:
> I'm not so excited about deriving authorship data from git, though. It
> seems like there are a lot of reasons that could be "wrong" from the
> point of view of what we want for the documentation (how do you decide
> when a checkin represents a true "co--author?", etc.). Having the
> string there allows folks to use it with a little more nuance ("By
> Stuart Sierra with some critical bug fixes by Phil Hagelberg").
Well, everyone who's contributed to the library is an author in a
sense. Whoever's written the most lines of non-whitespace,
non-documentation code is the primary author. Why rely on
manually-curated data when you have a canonical source?
Anyway, I'm just not a fan of strong code ownership as I see that
sometimes it creates a "don't touch" mindset. But maybe that's just me.
> But even if it did #^{} is legitimate syntax and emacs probably
> shouldn't barf on it.
That's true. I'll let someone who uses it write the patch though. =)
-Phil
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
