On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 04:03:13PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote: > > right, but it wasn't a cherrypick which was explain in the thread. So > there's no wrongs here .. I said the *equivalent* of a cherry-pick. And in general, if I'm taking things from another git tree, I'll try to preserve the commit structure as much as possible, preserve the Author: information, as well as reference the original git tree and commit id's, and of course, keep the signed-off-by's. That's true even if I need to do fairly significant work to port it to the current tree. In some cases, of course, that might not be possible. But in general, it's much better to err on the side of including authorship than not. Note the big uproar that happened when the code from BSD wireless drivers were imported in without due care for attribution. In the case of pulling commits from another Linux kernel source tree, there isn't even the excuse of needing to port from a completely different OS's infrastructure. If there is a desire to keep the git tree bisectable, and the order in which things were checked in don't allow for tree bisectability, sure, that might be a reason to collapse commits together; but even then, I'd probably choose one of the Author's of the two original commits as the Author field, instead of substituting my name in. Best regards, - Ted -- 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
