Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:43:33 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [git patches] net driver updates for .27 |
| |
David Miller wrote: > From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> > 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@canb.auug.org.au> >> Date: Thu May 29 22:39:28 2008 +1000 >> >> [netdrvr] Fix 8390 build breakage >> >> From: tony@bakeyournoodle.com (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
| |