On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 10:04 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:00:28 -0800 > Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 09:56 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:48:27 -0800 > > > Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:46:41 -0800 > > > > Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. I changed both, switching to new kernel API's, clean ups, finding a minimum set of code for this support, and debugging that and fixing defects in the code. This wasn't a trivial amount of work to create the series and commits. Daniel -- Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
