10:45 <tigerMafia> _aj_: i've always thought of it as: "wrote some of the code in this commit"

16:48 <sipa> _aj_: i've always used it as "contributed a significant part of the code in this commit" (more than just the idea, and more than a few individual lines/nits)

16:53 <sliv3r__> _aj_; same, I use it as "contributed to a significant part of the code", however in one specific case I used it when no code was provided as it was a bug fix that was really detailed, how to trigger, what code is wrong, etc. And the change was really small, just 2 lines.

17:47 <l0rinc> _aj_: ```are we using co-author to mean "wrote some of the code in this commit" or "contributed to the design" these days?``` - I noticed that people interpret this differently. I usually add everyone as a co-author who helped me get to the final shape, as a token of appreciation - whether through non-trivial ideas, reviews or suggestions. Are we supposed to reserve it for special occasions?

18:09 <lightlike> when someone else contributed the idea for a commit (but no code) I usually just put "Idea by xxx" into the commit msg, but co-author only for non-trivial code. but happy to do whatever the consensus is.

18:22 <sedited> _aj_ I would prefer if people would use co-author to mean "fully understands the commit and contributed to its code"

18:39 <nkaretnikov> imo spelling it out resolves any ambiguity: “based on a patch by”, “inspired by an idea by”, etc. if someone provided a patch, i would try to add it to a branch as a separate commit and then apply changes on top to make it clear who contributed what.