Really though? Let's look at one of them: [PATCH 3/7] msm: qsd8x50: add acpuclock code Please tell me the amount of time it took you to "debug and fix defects in the code" from the following: http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=kernel/experimental.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-msm/acpuclock-qsd8x50.c;h=691acdeaad74c2f29927308b8110af7d4dd5070b;hb=refs/heads/android-msm-2.6.37-wip That is basically a squash of 3 commits (one of which was another squash of ~20 commits during a cleanup which has all the attributions in the squash). This file's main authors was Brian, Arve, and myself, with some contributions from Mike, Iliyan, and Haley from HTC. Doing a quick-and-dirty grep through the history, the contributions break down as: 2 Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx> 6 Brian Swetland <swetland@xxxxxxxxxx> 14 Dima Zavin <dima@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2 Haley Teng <Haley_Teng@xxxxxxx> 1 Iliyan Malchev <malchev@xxxxxxxxxx> 5 Mike Chan <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx> Your commit is a: git checkout <branch> -- <file> ; git add ; git commit; --Dima On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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
