Re: [git patches] net driver updates for .27

From: Jeff Garzik
Date: Thu Jun 12 2008 - 18:43:53 EST

David Miller wrote:
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:08:23 -0400

Did you actually read the commit description? It's quite clear who originated the commit:


commit 0c1aa20fb87b796d904f4d89ad12e5a0c483127b
Author: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu May 29 22:39:28 2008 +1000

[netdrvr] Fix 8390 build breakage

From: tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Tony Breeds)

To each their own, I suppose, but...

If you look at what happens when Andrew dumps a thousand patches to
Linus this isn't how it is handled.

Sure, Andrew has an alternate method of including himself the audit trail: adding a signed-off-by line.

sfr didn't do that, and I certainly am not going to add one on his behalf (and given email mess, the turnaround would have taken a long time if I had asked via email).


"Author" is always who wrote the patch, and I think it's important to
be consistent in that area.

"always"? There are /plenty/ of occasions, usually at big corps, where the Author is not the person who wrote the patch, but rather the person who sent the patch.

And you'll note that all Linus's tools capture that -- author is patch sender -- albeit with optional From parsing from patch commit description.


Stephen Rothwell isn't the "Author" of this patch any more than you
are Jeff. By your own logic, you are saying that you could have just
as equally put yourself in the Author field since hey, you're
effectively submitting the patch to me via your tree right? :-)

My own logic is merely that we should capture the entire audit trail.

You are welcome to pull netdev-2.6.git#davem-silly if you don't think the existing pull is sufficient, though.

Jeff


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/