linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] PV on HVM Xen

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003121024590.27222@kaball-desktop>
Date:	Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:42:42 +0000
From:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To:	Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@...citrix.com>,
	Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@...citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] PV on HVM Xen

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Sheng Yang wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 March 2010 23:46:54 Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Hi all,
> 
> Stefano,
> 
> And next time when you send out the patch, please be more respect to my work.
> 
> You dropped all the original author(me) of patchset, and only add a sign-off 
> for me. If you don't aware the difference, here is a snippet of 
> linux/Documentation/SummittingPatches
> 

I am truly sorry and apologise for it, I would never want to give you
the impression of being disrespectful of you and your work.
If you pay attention I manually wrote in the comments of all the past
versions of the patches that you were the original author, this time I
just forgot.
I guess it is really the time I start using git-send-email :)

Your work has been really important for my series and you deserve the
credit for it independently from which patch series gets applied.

> Another thing is, you were keeping using my old patches as your base, while I 
> was working with the reviewers to update the patch quickly. I don't think 
> that's a kind of respect to both reviewers' and my work. You would duplicate 
> reviewer's effect, especially you always repost the whole patch(and drop my 
> authorship) rather than the different part. I've split patches in order to 
> provide a code base for further development, but you complete ignored them and 
> keeping post the whole patchset based on my old patches.
> 

I don't keep using your old patches as a base but I manually rebase over
the most recent patch series you sent every time.
Obviously it is not a perfect system and sometimes I can miss something,
this is why at the beginning I asked you to work together on the same
tree: I wanted to avoid exactly this sort of issues.

My intentions are true so my proposal of working on a common tree is
still valid, just let me know when you are interested.

--
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/