Re: why are some of my patches being credited to other "authors"?

["Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>]

On 09/12/06, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Tim Schmielau wrote:
>
> > i wrote:
>
> > > but given that i'm trying to follow the kernel guidelines and keep
> > > each submission as a logically-related chunk, in many cases, i
> > > have to wait for one patch to be applied before i can submit the
> > > next one. and, at the moment, there's no way of knowing what's
> > > going on.
> >
> > Well, you can send out a patch series:
> >   [patch 01/02] Prepare foo for blah
> >   [patch 02/02] Apply blah to foo
> > Ideally you would finish the patch description for patch 02 with something
> > like
> >
> > ---
> > This patch depends on [patch 01/02] Prepare foo for blah
>
> ... snip ...
>
> wait a minute.  that's not what i've understood all this time as the
> rationale for a multi-part patch -- to show dependency.  certainly,
> that's not what you read in "SubmittingPatches":
>
> "If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
> complete, that is OK.  Simply note "this patch depends on patch X" in
> your patch description."
>
> that doesn't say anything about using the multi-part notation.  are
> you sure about this?
>
I've done this several times. It's quite a common way of doing it.

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html