Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 01/21/2006 08:03 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Generally, when attribution of a change is
noted in CHANGES, if the patch is from an external
person (or attached in Bugzilla), the person
providing the patch should get sole attribution, unless,
of course, "noteworthy" changes or additions were
done by others, in which case they get attributed
as well. Simply taking someone's patch and then
committing it does not mean that you get to add
yourself to the attribution list. :)
If the patch is supplied by an external person I like to
see the name of the committer in the CHANGES file who actually
applied the patch even if goes in unchanged. This is
not to appease the ego of the committer, but to have the information
at hand who reviewed, possibly tested and committed the patch.
Of course this information is also in subversion, but I think it
eases investigations.
Nope. That's what subversion is for. Not CHANGES.
Agreed. CHANGES is an authorship attribution alone. If you had to spend
more than a minute or few to massage a patch into a legitimate backport,
or built upon the patch author's proposal for the final patch, then joint
authorship is appropriate. Otherwise it's the original author alone.
Bill
