[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201102204545.lwjv3oulrv54brs6@wolfsden.cz>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 21:45:45 +0100
From: Wolf <wolf@...fsden.cz>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Authorship/attribution and stalled patches
Hello,
On 2020-11-02 14:45:58 -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> This would be a major regression in maintainership quality. It
> introduces versions that don't work/have new bugs that would not
> otherwise be in the history, making it harder to bisect, harder for
> patches to commute (and be backported etc.), harder to read and
> understand, etc. The intent of the history is to be a history is
> approved changes, with clearly documented motivations for each.
My opinion on this is that for
1. Commit message only changes
Just rewrite the commit message and add note at the bottom along the
lines that "Commit message by Rich" or something like that. And leave
original author.
2. Changes in the patch itself
This I think calls for common sense approach, based on how large the
changes are. Same approach in as 1., in case of small changes add
something like "Slightly modified by Rich", in case of large(r) rewrite
"Based on patch by AUTHOR".
If the end goal is to merge those stale patches, I think this is best
that can be done.
W.
--
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
