4 ms·

I'm not sure how I feel about someone writing something and making me the author. I guess attribution makes sense in the form of paraphrasing. But I tend to t

I'm not sure how I feel about someone writing something and making me the author. I guess attribution makes sense in the form of paraphrasing. But I tend to think of commits as literal quotations.

eevilspock 12y ago
see ntalbott's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7949456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7949456
ntalbott 12y ago
You may think of commits as literal quotations of the "Author", but it's important to realize that git doesn't. If you want to know who's ultimately responsible for a commit, you always want to look at the "Committer" since that's who actually signed on the dotted line so to speak.
- nirvdrum 12y ago
  I'm not concerned with who's ultimately responsible for the commit. I'm concerned with being called the author on something I didn't write. These distinctions are not made or enforced by git. At the end of the day, it's how humans interpret two pieces of metadata. The first hit on Google and Bing for "git committer vs author" brings up this SO entry: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18750808/difference-between-author-and-committer-in-git http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18750808/difference-betwe... So, I don't think I'm taking some fringe view here. For my part, I don't think I want someone else writing code and putting my name on it.
jessaustin 12y ago
I see what you mean, and it almost seems like the "sin" isn't the additional editing, it's the subsequent rebase. It's one thing to require contributors to rebase, but it seems like another to rebase for them. Maybe I'm missing something, but based on the "History Is Written By the Victors" section of TFA I would have been surprised to see anyone other than @ntalbott at the top of https://github.com/Shopify/active_merchant/graphs/contributors https://github.com/Shopify/active_merchant/graphs/contributo...

I'm not sure how I feel about someone writing something and making me the author. I guess attribution makes sense in the form of paraphrasing. But I tend to think of commits as literal quotations.

eevilspock 12y ago

see ntalbott's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7949456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7949456

ntalbott 12y ago

You may think of commits as literal quotations of the "Author", but it's important to realize that git doesn't. If you want to know who's ultimately responsible for a commit, you always want to look at the "Committer" since that's who actually signed on the dotted line so to speak.

nirvdrum 12y ago
I'm not concerned with who's ultimately responsible for the commit. I'm concerned with being called the author on something I didn't write. These distinctions are not made or enforced by git. At the end of the day, it's how humans interpret two pieces of metadata. The first hit on Google and Bing for "git committer vs author" brings up this SO entry: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18750808/difference-between-author-and-committer-in-git http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18750808/difference-betwe... So, I don't think I'm taking some fringe view here. For my part, I don't think I want someone else writing code and putting my name on it.

jessaustin 12y ago

I see what you mean, and it almost seems like the "sin" isn't the additional editing, it's the subsequent rebase. It's one thing to require contributors to rebase, but it seems like another to rebase for them. Maybe I'm missing something, but based on the "History Is Written By the Victors" section of TFA I would have been surprised to see anyone other than @ntalbott at the top of https://github.com/Shopify/active_merchant/graphs/contributors https://github.com/Shopify/active_merchant/graphs/contributo...