Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] ACPI: allow longer device IDs

Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-27T10:47:56Z

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:30, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:03, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/27/22, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 at 23:07, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> From: Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Please don't invent patch authors like that. Alex's patch that started
> > > this discussion was completely different.
> >
> > Considering the investigative side ("why won't the _CID match?") and
> > most the commit message were Alex's, and that those things comprise
> > 95% of what this patch is, and that the code change itself isn't even
> > part of anything Turing complete, I most certainly did not feel
> > comfortable stripping Alex's authorship. Instead I added myself as a
> > co-author at the bottom. When in doubt, err on the side of crediting
> > others. Alex also took a look at this patch, I am under the impression
> > of at least, before it went out. Let's minimize the paperwork
> > policing, okay? I think it'd make for a much more pleasant space here.
>
...
>
> Please stop with the ad hominems in response to criticism on factual
> aspects of your code. Putting someone else's authorship on code they
> did not write is not cool, and pointing that out is *not* what is
> making this space unpleasant.
> And 'paperwork policing' is sadly an important aspect of a high
> profile open source project such as Linux.
>

I typed this before reading your message on IRC, which reads:

"Alex looked at that patch before i sent it out and did not object to
me keeping his authorship. I wouldn't have sent it out otherwise."

and so I stand corrected if this is true. But please, next time,
please be more clear about these things.

--
Ard.