Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: [Axiom-commit] SF.net SVN: axiom: [426] branches/wh-sandbox

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Waldek Hebisch wrote:

| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 address@hidden wrote:
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > | Modified: branches/wh-sandbox/src/etc/asq.c.pamphlet
| > | ===================================================================
| > | --- branches/wh-sandbox/src/etc/asq.c.pamphlet    2007-01-27 16:50:57 UTC 
(rev 425)
| > | +++ branches/wh-sandbox/src/etc/asq.c.pamphlet    2007-02-01 05:09:31 UTC 
(rev 426)
| > | @@ -2,1559 +2,929 @@
| > |  \usepackage{axiom}
| > |  \begin{document}
| > |  \title{\$SPAD/etc asq.c}
| > | -\author{Timothy Daly}
| > | +\author{Waldek Hebisch}
| >
| > I believe the conventional wisdom would suggest that you add your name
| > as co-author as opposed to replacing the existing author, even if you
| > have rewritten it. If this were a separate new program not building on
| > previous ideas, I would that it is OK.
| >
|
| Hmm, I undersand that conventional wisdom is to err on side of giving
| more credit for work than too little credit, but I find this suggestion
| a little extreme.

I'm not so sure.

| Gaby, did you look at both programs: the new asq is a _new_ program.

I read over your new "asq" and the old asq and followed your
explanation, *before* I sent my mail.

My opinion is that your name should be added co-author, not replace
the original author.  Or, call the program something else and
acknowledge that this new program greatly benefited from the existing
one, in particular from its documentation and its errors. But having
two proram doing almost the same thing will be very confusing.  So, I
believe the conventional wisdom is good here.

A ways to kepp a project attractice and collegial is to be cautious
with credit.

Look at GCC for example.  Most parts of it have nothing common with
the GCC from 1996 or 1997.  In particular, look at the C preprocessor;
it has been *completely* rewritten from scratch, with readically
different ideas.  Nonetheless, the authorship displays the people who
did not "directly" contribute to the new program in any form.

-- Gaby