From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 25713 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2020 19:40:56 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 2 Nov 2020 19:40:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 26547 invoked by uid 550); 2 Nov 2020 19:40:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 26529 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2020 19:40:51 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1604346040; bh=SO31V0hvFw4+5vsHiHffQ4jP4AKQu/pQrGyIGuL3V1c=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=WcG0Qp2FduTJKxlD3oWkNUrI6/b4u/FCRmV5tNCjXL4qqg598hr3quGJlqYKZ4UsU e4tRe0zt784yMuYbdv6s/QH/JA4aDNauXOibjL15W6H7NqPWhBqIw9UnA+wSf7BKat t0CyU/BjErJof2ejXkqSPI60YPY6oIcWJERGl/QU= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 20:40:28 +0100 From: Markus Wichmann To: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20201102194028.GA2009@voyager> References: <20201102011630.GQ534@brightrain.aerifal.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201102011630.GQ534@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:e3t7tUauH0tvhADsM88dVQn2R0Dal+kM5DmbMcGsS+9XR+JQW05 ECpsPtgyRGYfe4onN8iGSNmlD8axdIrRNORXGLfwrhHA7JIPk+OJlOp4+fWu83+2mMhmi32 JvFcFuGe6AYticSKz9IVTvtwbwvpq3NqP0b/GGq0WmwA1JUXu/pbX3/+CjFyawMRU28UHuu dQQRS/jbO9fsDbmymXagA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:EIlrJOSgy/Q=:uFHcIK/VCIu36bQMhX5IZC UMuD5G2s5R6yGXIynsgcZSvA0BKTiCb6yuD1LpwoY9Aen5lzT/PnTL7F3kYNCQw4JG6olsJqr 1Cde7HqBLFazLFb/JZx0nyWRSAEceUcsDG4W9jNx4OTBKx/v2lgQSne0QL8e1TlLDxdJJy9P7 f77138Bm8eB5G28lkFH9SZnXCiMNRIw8AOLQA72t/YDGQBy4b2E/lWwAkIESXKn9+fdW6J9LX sAhKzCjBm9bvZ5RNtGWkiJFmEluyhR1vDJT6tqB43xkap+HUiGtc5JnAVe7Vwolz/CswswEbf sZEVV0VCkFWEeNExTTZJIOaeT9FU1ioJtZZvOvpBWFXZwsXj+69k5u4vGrwYO8ZKxE3t7FGkL 29vvZzB2nkFbHkYO2MtbL0/Dxo22VwkEYCs1JBHLS7kRkelP3Z4IDy6K8ve1F8psq+m5sZZ2q Oj3ybQj8M7hB0MhtRBfMkjJnolx6HJzbKQhw83MuUE69Tf6dt4xpQ3SMqXjWFfBt1+H5j4OPx nUzBeAsEzBcX5n5o9QnBcMj2kTLRSpg/SN5C7qadwlgTdLIWalwrSktDGeDWDjLbS4fnEFiX/ Fl2IYskmx0uet54Rn5CsOSx0xvBjyDiDVObPPNj/Bf5b/gzEr5zHSKDts8tTROiRMEptPzT6s s+I65seJNIGlNxx1s6rGCzZkgeEseBI5Jbyi1Bk0hRAbBDpueKviTbS+sw/G+PhqYlZFPy0b6 cfzi4GQuS09EBT9gI4fchS0tcD0WRk+LYLan1SKB9nvp9OTxuLAaurscIoMNRAHpnB5Y7fnrT 52vhWhcGhBfaJyUIISdGiUT0sRW+7mvu6pT92F47wBvSGuTd3WWLGy+wlqU7dTj9g+9fnuFOg xPdikuAvqDtKlBLAqNKg== Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [musl] Authorship/attribution and stalled patches On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 08:16:32PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > It came to my attention that there are a few patches in limbo where, > after some discussion, it seems I was waiting for an updated patch > from the contributor to apply, and it never appeared. I could and > should just make the changes myself (this would have been more > efficient to begin with), but I'm not sure what to do about > authorship/attribution in that situation, and it probably deserves > community input. > > A while back, I started trying to make better use of git commit > authorship to credit contributors, rather than just mentioning "patch > by X" or "based on patch/idea by X" in commit messages. However I > still don't have a clear feel for how this should work in the case > where the patch is modified before being applied. Are there > established norms for the degree to which a patch should be modified > while leaving the author intact, or should it just always be converted > to commit authorship by the person who makes the final changes, with > original author in the description? It's really a tradeoff between > potential misattribution of mistakes or changes the original author > might not like, and failure to credit, and I don't know where the > right balance is. > > Rich Why not just apply the patch as-is (leaving the patch author as committer), then commit the necessary changes afterwards (as yourself)? That way the original patch becomes its own commit, and we can see what had to be changed afterwards. If you want to make it extraordinarily clean, you could do all of that on a branch and merge the product afterwards. Seems to be the cleanest solution. If the patch is not yet in a form where the fixes are obvious (e.g. the reallocarray() patch we had a while back that either would give you horrible performance or copies of sensitive data lying around in address space), then the patch is probably not ripe, anyway. Ciao, Markus