[PATCH 0/7] Nexus One Support

[Jesse Barnes]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:18:02 -0800
Daniel Walker <dwalker at codeaurora.org> wrote:

> 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.

Ok, then I'm sorry for jumping the gun.  The changelogs made the
changes sound more trivial ("slight modifications and cleanup"); and
those would only justify a small [] text near the s-o-b lines.  But if
they're larger, maybe you should expand on the text and include the
original authorship like Christoph suggested (or use the original
author for patches where the changes really were trivial).

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center