[PATCH 0/7] Nexus One Support

[Daniel Walker]

On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 10:04 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:00:28 -0800
> Daniel Walker <dwalker at codeaurora.org> 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 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.
> > 
> > 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.