Mark, I did some experiments on weekends and I'm against of using -u option under any circumstances.
People sponsoring changeset can make a mistake - most obvious one is wrong merge conflict resolution. If it happens we are loosing the way to solve the problem quickly - author know nothing about conflict but we have no obvious record about sponsor. So I think we have only two options (leaving aside extra repo) - a) author prepare changeset by it's own and sponsor acts just as slow bot - all problems transmitted back to author. b) author send a webrev and sponsor uses Contributed-by: field to respect credits. -Dmitry On 2013-05-10 01:47, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > 2013/5/9 2:10 -0700, gnu.and...@redhat.com: >>> Indeed. I do this with the Oracle patches when applying them to IcedTea. >>> The problem is how this gets done is down to the sponsor; I've had ones >>> that have been imported, ones where I've just been giving the Contributed-by >>> attribution (despite having commit rights) and at least one with no credit >>> at >> ... >> >> An example I just came across when looking into an issue: >> >> changeset: 2657:46cb9a7b8b01 >> parent: 2647:ca1f1753c866 >> user: dsamersoff >> date: Wed Aug 10 15:04:21 2011 +0400 >> files: src/share/vm/runtime/os.cpp >> description: >> 7073913: The fix for 7017193 causes segfaults >> Summary: Buffer overflow in os::get_line_chars >> Reviewed-by: coleenp, dholmes, dcubed >> Contributed-by: a...@redhat.com >> >> That should have had 'aph' as the user. If you get the default output: >> >> changeset: 2657:46cb9a7b8b01 >> parent: 2647:ca1f1753c866 >> user: dsamersoff >> date: Wed Aug 10 15:04:21 2011 +0400 >> summary: 7073913: The fix for 7017193 causes segfaults >> >> it looks like Dmitry wrote the fix. > > I'm sure there was no intent on Dmitry's part to try to claim credit for > this fix. > > The most important principle to be maintained here is that people get > proper credit for their work, as you wrote earlier. > > Beyond that, it's reasonable to prefer that credit be given in the "most > obvious" way, in particular by using proper usernames, when available, > in changesets. If a sponsor makes a mistake, however, and winds up > using a Contributed-by: line instead, then that's unfortunate but not, > in my view, the end of the world. > > In general, if you have the Author role (or higher) in some OpenJDK > Project then when you submit a change that requires a sponsor's help you > should send a Mercurial patch (hg export) or bundle (hg bundle) with the > proper username, summary, etc. In normal circumstances the sponsor > should not change the patch but merely make sure that it's properly > tested, merged, and pushed. If a change is required then the sponsor > should ask the submitter to create a new patch or bundle. If for some > reason the sponsor must modify the patch directly then the hg -u option > should be used, as appropriate, to preserve the submitter's user name in > the changeset. (Yes, this is one of those rare cases in which a sponsor > should use the -u option.) > > Iris -- Could you please make a note to add guidance on this issue to > the next revision of the developers' guide? Thanks. > > - Mark > -- Dmitry Samersoff Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia * I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
