From: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>
To: Matt Armstrong <marmstrong@google.com>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add Google Inc. to AUTHORS as a contributor.
In-Reply-To: <1469136633-19235-2-git-send-email-marmstrong@google.com>
References: <1469136633-19235-1-git-send-email-marmstrong@google.com>
 <1469136633-19235-2-git-send-email-marmstrong@google.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.22.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:01:08 -0300
Message-ID: <877fcdltd7.fsf@zancas.localnet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list

Matt Armstrong <marmstrong@google.com> writes:

> By virtue of being a Google employee I'm required to contribute
> software in the name of Google and not myself.  Google retains
> whatever rights (and liabilities) that come from having done so, not
> myself.  As long as this is clear, and my association with Google is
> clear, my employer is quite supportive of my making these
> contributions.

I've no objection to this in principle, but

1) if we start updating AUTHORS after 7 years of neglect, I think we
need to do a more systematic job. I'm tempted to script the output of
"git shortlog" as part of the release process.

In id:1469191654-5922-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net, I've posted
the beginnings of a mailmap file. What about adding something like

Google Inc. (by way of Matt Armstrong)  <marmstrong@google.com>

to the mailmap file?

If that sounds reasonable to you, I'll leave it to you to play with the
mailmap syntax to get what you want.


2) If you think the corporate overlords are fine with a mention of
contribution in AUTHORS, that's also fine for me, but note that this is
distinct from a claim of copyright.  There are copyright headers in
every source file, so if you want to claim copyright on behalf of your
employer (which is fine, I think we're not fussed about people adding
themselves to copyright headers for anything more than 2 lines of change
or so) then you'll want to update those headers. At least, that would be
that safer option, rather than thinking such a claim is implicit.