Per PR feedback, I've gone ahead and merged the authorship change.  

As for the @author tags, we'll follow-up separately on those in our weekly or 
in the future. 

On 2025/12/04 04:10:24 James Daugherty wrote:
> Alright, I took a pass on this after today's weekly meeting:
> 
> I added a .mailmap after consulting with James Fredley.  This helps correct 
> our contribution graph so users like Jeff Brown now show as the 3rd largest 
> committer (he had a lot of disjoint emails over the years). 
> 
> 
> With the mailmap in hand, running `git shortlog -esn --all` allowed me to 
> take a pass at historical contributions.  There are over 700 authors listed 
> in the git history (we can probably collapse more of these, but I've done my 
> best to do the ones with major contributions).  
> 
> 
> It seems that the majority of authors have less than 10 commits, so I chose 
> that as the cut off point.  
> 
> I am proposing the following criteria to be listed in the pom: 
> 1. Founders
> 2. Developers
> - `active` contributors
> - should have an ASF account
> - supports the current framework
> 3. Developer Emeritus
> Past Developers
> - non-apache members go here until their ASF account is created
> - non-active, no contributions across mailing lists, commits, or Grails 
> related areas in the last 12 months
> - contributors in the pom previously
> - significant contributors (i.e. they were involved in Grails Development or 
> a member of a company that was)
> 4. Contributors
> - not full time supporting the project and historically were not considered 
> on the Grails Team or an associated project
> - if any of these members continue to contribute they will become future 
> developers
> 
> As a next step, I started to look at removing `@author` tags, and then 
> noticed there are coauthored files that do not have all of the authors in the 
> git history.  For example, in AntPathMatcher, Arjen Poutsma is listed but 
> they are not present in the Git History.  
> 
> Given the contribution history, it's likely these were original files from 
> Spring that were contributed under the code agreement so it's acceptable they 
> exist in the code base from a license perspective.  However, if we remove the 
> author tag, we'll loose information for files in this scenario.  
> 
> Also, for cases like the JSON.org public domain files, I don't think we 
> should be removing the `@author` tags.
> 
> I'm not sure what to do with the older author tags for the spring scenario - 
> do we still remove them in these cases?  Do we add these users as Developer 
> Emeritus - even though they likely never worked directly on Grails?  
> 
> Maybe we should only remove `@author` tags where all of the authors are 
> present in git history (see .mailmap)?
> 
> Please take a look at the PR's PublishPlugin 
> (https://github.com/apache/grails-core/blob/bf4cf701f1580cd4c0095df16fad8f0396e3f54e/build-logic/plugins/src/main/groovy/org/apache/grails/buildsrc/PublishPlugin.groovy#L194)
>  and then respond on what we should do ...
> 
> 
> On 2025/12/03 13:59:47 James Fredley wrote:
> > Thank you for working through all these details.
> > 
> > I lean towards a cutoff below 200, to show a broader base, but still high 
> > enough so list maintenance is not an issue.  
> > 
> > We have a few contributors who have joined the project as committers, but 
> > are below the current threshold, one is likely because that work is on the 
> > hibernate6 branch.  Should we include any committer/PMC member with a lower 
> > threshold of commits, given they are currently active?   
> > 
> > I think the threshold(s) should be in the comments for clarity.  
> > 
> > James Fredley
> > 
> > On 2025/12/02 19:02:02 James Daugherty wrote:
> > > I created a draft PR here: 
> > > https://github.com/apache/grails-core/pull/15274 
> > > 
> > > Specifically this area: 
> > > https://github.com/apache/grails-core/blob/cca0b41ee5c560b37bb247d0ac0b5bdecf1da5b7/build-logic/plugins/src/main/groovy/org/apache/grails/buildsrc/PublishPlugin.groovy#L195
> > > 
> > > Initially, I defined: 
> > > 
> > > 1. anyone that was a founder
> > > 2. anyone that was previously listed as a developer or in the pom files
> > > 3. delineated who is active vs not via the rules set forth in 
> > > PublishPlugin.groovy
> > > 
> > > So the next question, is who else do we include in this list?  
> > > 
> > > Running the command `git shortlog -esn --all` shows all past 
> > > contributors, but not all contributors were developers.  Should we make a 
> > > cut off on who to include?  Say anyone over 200 commits? 
> > > 
> > > On 2025/12/02 16:09:38 James Daugherty wrote:
> > > > I opened https://github.com/apache/grails-gradle-publish/pull/21 to 
> > > > support titles in the grails publish plugin.  Once this is merged, I'll 
> > > > put together a PR for us to further discuss based on this thread.
> > > > 
> > > > -James
> > > > 
> > > > On 2025/11/28 14:33:46 Mattias Reichel wrote:
> > > > > This would be nice to have in the poms, but I think it might be a lot
> > > > > of work if we keep these lists separate per project.
> > > > > Groovy, it seems, has the same aggregated, manually edited list[1], in
> > > > > all module poms.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] 
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/groovy/blob/5acebda191d346b531ceaa7ee0b08cd03fe04651/build-logic/src/main/groovy/org.apache.groovy-published-library.gradle#L82
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Den ons 26 nov. 2025 kl 14:50 skrev James Daugherty 
> > > > > <[email protected]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The recent bom property issue reminded me we still have not followed
> > > > > > up on harmonizing our author list in our pom files.  Currently, we 
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > not list all of the developers under authors for each project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Groovy's pom 
> > > > > > (https://central.sonatype.com/artifact/org.apache.groovy/groovy)
> > > > > > enumerates all authors and assigns a role to indicate if they're 
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > active / founder / legacy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Groovy uses the following roles:
> > > > > > 1. Founder
> > > > > > 2. Developer
> > > > > > 3. Developer Emeritus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Going by https://www.infoq.com/news/2025/11/grails-7-released/, the
> > > > > > following would be founders:
> > > > > > 1. Graeme Rocher
> > > > > > 2. Guillaume LaForge
> > > > > > 3. Steven Devijver
> > > > > > 4. Dierk König
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I don't see #2 & #3 in the commit history.  I assume we should
> > > > > > only include those in the commit history?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for developer vs developer emeritus, I think we should consider
> > > > > > anyone who hasn't contributed in the last 12 months as developer
> > > > > > emeritus.  Everyone else would just be listed as a developer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What are people's thoughts on this proposal?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -James
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

Reply via email to