|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Managing expectations with a contributions and credit policy

Managing expectations with a contributions and credit policy

Posted May 16, 2024 11:34 UTC (Thu) by vaurora (guest, #38407)
In reply to: Managing expectations with a contributions and credit policy by jezuch
Parent article: Managing expectations with a contributions and credit policy

I wrote a long discussion of the subtleties of the "Co-authored-by:" tag but ended up cutting it.

Short version: "Co-authored-by:" is an important and critical tool for giving secondary credit. Most people use it to give credit to someone who wrote a small part of a larger contribution that can't be contributed separately and otherwise would not have gotten formal credit at all. But I've seen people who make a habit of slightly editing almost every PR, making themselves the primary author of the commit, and making it look less bad by booting the primary author to "Co-authored-by:". This is slightly better than maintainers who do this and demote the primary author to "Reported-by:" or "Signed-off-by:", but if it's being used as a plausibly deniable way to usurp credit, it's a net loss IMO.

The difference between primary author and co-author is important: most software, including git itself, chooses to display only the primary author. For example, some IDEs show the git primary author of each line; the co-author only shows up if you look at the entire log message. So a contributor spends 99% of their time seeing the primary author repeated hundreds of times and 1% seeing the co-author scroll by once. I know GitHub has some support for "Co-authored-by:" but it seems a little fiddly.

Another important point is that it's mostly only maintainers who have the power to do this: the contribution shows up with the correct primary author, the maintainer makes some easy changes, decides they deserve primary credit, changes the authorship, and check it in. A contributor can't do the same thing to a maintainer. So misuse of "Co-authored-by:" tends to be solely by maintainers or other gatekeepers, just like other forms of taking credit unfairly.

People will still argue about whether "Co-authored-by:" is significantly different than primary author, but watch what people do: most people prefer and will fight for credit as primary author.


to post comments

Managing expectations with a contributions and credit policy

Posted May 21, 2024 4:59 UTC (Tue) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link] (1 responses)

You're right, it's trivial to abuse it and does not mix well with people with inflated egos, or who like to game the system. Maybe I didn't think about it because I work with decent people ;) I'm not sure we have anything much better, though.

FWIW, GitHub will display all authors (and also the committer) on a list of commits in a PR, as icons next to each commit. When you open a particular commit, the primary author is obviously emphasized, though.

Managing expectations with a contributions and credit policy

Posted May 28, 2024 12:31 UTC (Tue) by wiktor (guest, #132450) [Link]

Agreed, that in most cases the problem just doesn't appear if you've got a good team and if you've got a bad team then patch authorship is the smallest of your problems.

As a maintainer I sometimes have to fix the PR of a contributor that disappeared and the PR is in conflict. I usually leave the author but append myself as `Co-authored-by` if the conflict resolution is not trivial or needs further adjustments or code changes (e.g. adding test cases).


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds