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=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_ALL, 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 692 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2020 20:46:01 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 2 Nov 2020 20:46:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 5232 invoked by uid 550); 2 Nov 2020 20:45:58 -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 5207 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2020 20:45:58 -0000 Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 21:45:45 +0100 From: Wolf To: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20201102204545.lwjv3oulrv54brs6@wolfsden.cz> References: <20201102011630.GQ534@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20201102194028.GA2009@voyager> <20201102194557.GU534@brightrain.aerifal.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="l7w5sha7627jfn7b" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201102194557.GU534@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Subject: Re: [musl] Authorship/attribution and stalled patches --l7w5sha7627jfn7b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, On 2020-11-02 14:45:58 -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > This would be a major regression in maintainership quality. It > introduces versions that don't work/have new bugs that would not > otherwise be in the history, making it harder to bisect, harder for > patches to commute (and be backported etc.), harder to read and > understand, etc. The intent of the history is to be a history is > approved changes, with clearly documented motivations for each. My opinion on this is that for 1. Commit message only changes Just rewrite the commit message and add note at the bottom along the lines that "Commit message by Rich" or something like that. And leave original author. 2. Changes in the patch itself This I think calls for common sense approach, based on how large the changes are. Same approach in as 1., in case of small changes add something like "Slightly modified by Rich", in case of large(r) rewrite "Based on patch by AUTHOR". If the end goal is to merge those stale patches, I think this is best that can be done. W. --=20 There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors. --l7w5sha7627jfn7b Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEE7BIrb0FxyZaks1p7hTP5S2N55TgFAl+gb/gACgkQhTP5S2N5 5TjUVhAAwZqsXTds/ulaHTUiHcGSMOyX+ud++KgQlwHmWodb/iAHG992zy55Ut+5 Vj4dT3U4APZ7/JSzHtKHphqgic3yfKwMz4mL/+yei36+fpmbAsfYfgWb8CEvji5s yBl288PneQ4op/1b/pYhiRjLbHuOk2hfdsATl3j8CN6fRJiEknm3myr5VYlQuNcz jKx8lnKTDWE1WYIYq1em+H+Zt1D8U+1teUnO8WD7MCIdXs8+dJKPiQ/uctLQWhr0 CDtoDqLoIuGhlgxPVjWFmaOBvm0q9f9ztJUNWsbL1pWmqa/x8u7CWT0dHmEmCKAz LKUgb8ZvFkbeuaMG7QSIINc6HrjHLNZfRcygqKg4T5yatMXnbxn7J7EqngW66PZE vE/RxT0jOiDCZIrs/2NojmAQUrlVxlS11R92qOaPmxdU59OyqJM2IjcktoItziqQ MOyYev5BA6+ki7Fw5yLu87VyOQhYw6ZBVno4cTG7r+WeYl4feaSCGWRUEOnA0vnm Za7CIaPHCqkOqA9i00U1bk5KjllHhZdfpaRxwlpMPjcDss58OOzL7kTDAOzvtpHr IQl0+a6rW93N6gxXD0MFiFkDZue5MQhEuk752Q/w3LLipESNoZ32GL7gPdhzLotT 6n0LeF6sgVOnSMUGYU6//EKlau0fMBettibL97yLSv1f4g7Bz2s= =rdHD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --l7w5sha7627jfn7b--