[PATCH 0/7] Nexus One Support

[Jesse Barnes]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:48:27 -0800
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:46:41 -0800
> Daniel Walker <dwalker at codeaurora.org> 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