From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Nexus One Support Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:04:41 -0800 Message-ID: <20110121100441.06a94482@jbarnes-desktop> References: <1295555565-21563-1-git-send-email-dwalker@codeaurora.org> <1295571359.9236.53.camel@m0nster> <1295574085.4096.6.camel@Joe-Laptop> <1295575123.9236.54.camel@m0nster> <1295576730.4096.24.camel@Joe-Laptop> <1295624801.19880.13.camel@m0nster> <20110121094827.41818a55@jbarnes-desktop> <20110121095658.1ab623fe@jbarnes-desktop> <1295632828.19880.22.camel@m0nster> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.39.60]:50850 "HELO oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754670Ab1AUSEo (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:04:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1295632828.19880.22.camel@m0nster> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Walker Cc: Joe Perches , Dima Zavin , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davidb@codeaurora.org On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:00:28 -0800 Daniel Walker wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 09:56 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:48:27 -0800 > > Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:46:41 -0800 > > > Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > This isn't what's happening tho. In maintainer land if someone forwards > > > > you a patch then you leave the original author on the patch. They wrote > > > > the patch and your just forwarding it on up the ladder. This isn't the > > > > case with these patches.. I crafted each of the commit I have authorship > > > > on, no one forwarded those commits to me. I'm not taking authorship > > > > credit for any thing I didn't create, although I an giving credit to the > > > > place which gave me the raw material which was Google. From my > > > > experience this is how it's done in Linux .. > > > > > > I don't know why you're even trying to defend this, just admit you were > > > wrong and move on. > > > > > > Trying to claim the author field for these patches for yourself is both > > > misleading and vain. You did not write the code and are therefore not > > > the author, trying to conflate the author and commit fields in this way > > > is so misguided I thought you must be trolling when I first saw this > > > thread. > > > > > > This is not "how it's done in Linux" at all. In this case you're > > > trying to act like a maintainer by collecting patches and forwarding > > > them upstream, so you need to preserve authorship and the s-o-b chain. > > > If you want to take responsibility for the code going forward, great, > > > but don't pollute the logs with bogus author fields that imply you > > > wrote the stuff in the first place. > > > > That said, if you did significant work on these before committing them, > > then you're right and I'm wrong. It *is* fairly common for committers > > to change things; and if the changes are significant enough, they claim > > authorship and note the original author in the changelog. > > > > So if that's the case here, I apologize, but I didn't see that > > explained in any part of the thread I read. > > I did a significant amount of work to create the commits and series. I'm > sorry if that's not clear, but it is in fact true. Changes to the code or just reordering and merging commits? If the former, then I think Christoph's comment applies, if the latter, I think preserving authorship is still the right thing to do. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org (Jesse Barnes) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:04:41 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 0/7] Nexus One Support In-Reply-To: <1295632828.19880.22.camel@m0nster> References: <1295555565-21563-1-git-send-email-dwalker@codeaurora.org> <1295571359.9236.53.camel@m0nster> <1295574085.4096.6.camel@Joe-Laptop> <1295575123.9236.54.camel@m0nster> <1295576730.4096.24.camel@Joe-Laptop> <1295624801.19880.13.camel@m0nster> <20110121094827.41818a55@jbarnes-desktop> <20110121095658.1ab623fe@jbarnes-desktop> <1295632828.19880.22.camel@m0nster> Message-ID: <20110121100441.06a94482@jbarnes-desktop> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:00:28 -0800 Daniel Walker wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 09:56 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:48:27 -0800 > > Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:46:41 -0800 > > > Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > This isn't what's happening tho. In maintainer land if someone forwards > > > > you a patch then you leave the original author on the patch. They wrote > > > > the patch and your just forwarding it on up the ladder. This isn't the > > > > case with these patches.. I crafted each of the commit I have authorship > > > > on, no one forwarded those commits to me. I'm not taking authorship > > > > credit for any thing I didn't create, although I an giving credit to the > > > > place which gave me the raw material which was Google. From my > > > > experience this is how it's done in Linux .. > > > > > > I don't know why you're even trying to defend this, just admit you were > > > wrong and move on. > > > > > > Trying to claim the author field for these patches for yourself is both > > > misleading and vain. You did not write the code and are therefore not > > > the author, trying to conflate the author and commit fields in this way > > > is so misguided I thought you must be trolling when I first saw this > > > thread. > > > > > > This is not "how it's done in Linux" at all. In this case you're > > > trying to act like a maintainer by collecting patches and forwarding > > > them upstream, so you need to preserve authorship and the s-o-b chain. > > > If you want to take responsibility for the code going forward, great, > > > but don't pollute the logs with bogus author fields that imply you > > > wrote the stuff in the first place. > > > > That said, if you did significant work on these before committing them, > > then you're right and I'm wrong. It *is* fairly common for committers > > to change things; and if the changes are significant enough, they claim > > authorship and note the original author in the changelog. > > > > So if that's the case here, I apologize, but I didn't see that > > explained in any part of the thread I read. > > I did a significant amount of work to create the commits and series. I'm > sorry if that's not clear, but it is in fact true. Changes to the code or just reordering and merging commits? If the former, then I think Christoph's comment applies, if the latter, I think preserving authorship is still the right thing to do. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center