linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] Nexus One Support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:44:17 -0800
From:	Dima Zavin <dmitriyz@...gle.com>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	davidb@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Nexus One Support

Really though? Let's look at one of them:

[PATCH 3/7] msm: qsd8x50: add acpuclock code

Please tell me the amount of time it took you to "debug and fix
defects in the code" from the following:
http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=kernel/experimental.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-msm/acpuclock-qsd8x50.c;h=691acdeaad74c2f29927308b8110af7d4dd5070b;hb=refs/heads/android-msm-2.6.37-wip

That is basically a squash of 3 commits (one of which was another
squash of ~20 commits during a cleanup which has all the attributions
in the squash). This file's main authors was Brian, Arve, and myself,
with some contributions from Mike, Iliyan, and Haley from HTC. Doing a
quick-and-dirty grep through the history, the contributions break down
as:
      2 Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
      6 Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>
     14 Dima Zavin <dima@...roid.com>
      2 Haley Teng <Haley_Teng@....com>
      1 Iliyan Malchev <malchev@...gle.com>
      5 Mike Chan <mike@...roid.com>

Your commit is a:
   git checkout <branch> -- <file> ; git add ; git commit;

--Dima

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.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@...eaurora.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@...tuousgeek.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:46:41 -0800
>> > > > Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.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.
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/