CHANGES attribution reminder

2006-01-21 Thread Jim Jagielski
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

Re: CHANGES attribution reminder

2006-01-21 Thread Ruediger Pluem
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 w

Re: CHANGES attribution reminder

2006-01-21 Thread Jim Jagielski
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 co

Re: CHANGES attribution reminder

2006-01-21 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
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,

Re: CHANGES attribution reminder

2006-01-21 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 01/21/2006 11:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Ruediger Pluem wrote: > [..cut..] >> >>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

Re: CHANGES attribution reminder

2006-01-21 Thread Roy T. Fielding
On Jan 21, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: Ok. Then I had a different understanding from my osmosis :-). Any other comments on this? I have no problem adopting the above rules for future CHANGE entries. Jim is correct. It is easy to forget now because Subversion doesn't have the rcstem

Re: CHANGES attribution reminder

2006-01-21 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 01/22/2006 12:49 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Jan 21, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > >> Ok. Then I had a different understanding from my osmosis :-). >> Any other comments on this? >> I have no problem adopting the above rules for future CHANGE entries. > > > Jim is correct. >

Re: CHANGES attribution reminder

2006-01-22 Thread Jim Jagielski
Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > > On 01/21/2006 11:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > > [..cut..] > > >> > >>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 u

Re: CHANGES attribution reminder

2006-01-22 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 01/22/2006 04:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Ruediger Pluem wrote: [..cut..] > > It's what we've been doing for over 10 years :) > > You weren't around, I think, when we were using CVS, but when one Yes, I am a post CVS guy. > did a commit there, there was a format that was prepended to >

Re: CHANGES attribution reminder

2006-01-22 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
--On January 22, 2006 5:12:15 PM +0100 Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I did a quick search and currently I cannot see a possibility to do so. Maybe we should log this as a feature request to the subversion guys. See the first-entry under