On 01/12/16 09:33, Sam Jorna wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 09:23:56PM +0000, Andrey Utkin wrote: >> The difference between my submission and final variant by Matthew is big >> in number of lines, but is trivial in content as you can see below, so I >> don't believe that Matthew has written his variant from scratch on his >> own (he hasn't given any note on tickets on bugs.g.o or github), it >> seems more like intentional swapping and amending original lines >> retaining identical outcome. >> >> Not that authorship of one or two commits is so crucial for me, or that >> I'm the most ambitious wannabe-contributor. Hell, there's not much of >> code at all in the ebuild - it's trivial; but also not much is needed >> here to give credit. I have contributed to quite some FOSS projects, and >> have run into theft of my patches a couple of times, and it never was by >> pure accident. > > Though I wasn't involved in these commits, I have seen how easy and > accidental it is to lose authorship information on a commit. That being > said, finding where to draw the line on authorship can be difficult. > > I'm not sure how many others are aware of this, but I'll mention it just > in case: provided it's done before pushing commits, the commit metadata > and message can be amended locally with > > git commit --amend --author="Joe Smith <jsm...@nowhere.blah>" > > This will update the Author tag but leave the Committer tag untouched > (and will allow fixing any problems with the commit message itself). > Amending commits that are not the tip of your local clone will probably > need an interactive rebase though (but I could be wrong about that). >
I've added a new section on the wiki page about this: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Retaining_commit_author_information Improvements welcome.
