From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754713Ab1AUR5G (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:57:06 -0500 Received: from oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.39.60]:38400 "HELO oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754678Ab1AUR5E (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:57:04 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:Date:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=LFk7HYUvOTBWwjjqDCQTuDk9/m1huulqgoHNJ0N3dZdPV9QqaYJ0sp4BscUKu0247cEu3oPA1IinjozQJ6qZ4QSvHp46sx1Uc9COmhWARn4g1jDhbOO4rbYKW6GdXuoT; Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:56:58 -0800 From: Jesse Barnes Cc: Daniel Walker , Joe Perches , Dima Zavin , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davidb@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Nexus One Support Message-ID: <20110121095658.1ab623fe@jbarnes-desktop> In-Reply-To: <20110121094827.41818a55@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> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 67.174.193.198 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center