Jeff Hostetler <[email protected]> writes:
> A question of mailing-list etiquette: in patch 9, I took Jonathan's
> ideas for adding the "extensions.partialclone" setting and extended it
> with some helper functions. His change was part of a larger change
> with other code (fsck, IIRC) that I wasn't ready for. What is the
> preferred way to give credit for something like this?
I think the note you left in the proposed log message
This patch is part of a patch originally authored by:
Jonathan Tan <[email protected]>
was a bit misleading. The phrasing makes it sound as if it is
more-or-less verbatim copy (either of the whole thing or just a
subset) of Jonathan's patch, in which case, keeping the authorship
intact, i.e.
From: Jonathan Tan <[email protected]>
... log message taken from the original, with additional
... note to describe any adjustment you did
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Hostetler <[email protected]>
would have been more appropriate. But if you just were inspired by
the idea in his patch and wrote a one that is similar to but
different from it that suits the need of your series better, then a
note left in the log that instead does s/is part of/was inspired by/
would have been perfectly fine.
Thanks.
