[PATCH 0/7] Nexus One Support
dmitriyz at google.com
Sat Jan 22 05:35:27 EST 2011
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Pekka Enberg <penberg at kernel.org> wrote:
> Hi Ted,
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> > > I'll add this list into the commit text ..
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:05:54PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> > So why is everyone bitching at Daniel when he's doing something the
>> > Android folks should have done themselves a long time ago?
> On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 18:49 -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
>> Two wrongs don't make a right. And it's not like not submitting
>> changes is wrong, although granted it's not ideal. (I'd say removing
>> attribution from a git commit is even worse. If you're doing the
>> equivalent of a cherry pick, you should preserve the Author field.
>> Even if you're doing some cleanup work, as the maintainer I generally
>> preserve the Author line, and will simply add the fact that I did some
>> cleanup to the commit body. The question is who did more work; the
>> person who originally submitted the code, or the person who did the
> Sure, it would have been nicer for everyone involved if Daniel would
> have kept the original patches and added new patches to clean it up on
> top of that to preserve the history. However, I don't understand the
> harsh comments when this looks like a honest mistake! And I especially
> don't understand the almost hostile attitude of the Android developers
There's absolutely no hostility. I stated from the very beginning that
I appreciate the voluntary effort by a 3rd party to upstream the board
files. I only asked that proper authorship be attributed, which is
standard linux kernel patch submission procedure when the committer
did not originate the code.
> who have been sitting on these patches for over a year now AFAICT.
Even if that were true, that does not somehow revoke the original
More information about the linux-arm-kernel