From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757510Ab0CLKic (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:38:32 -0500 Received: from smtp.eu.citrix.com ([62.200.22.115]:34456 "EHLO SMTP.EU.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757270Ab0CLKib (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:38:31 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,625,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="9912058" Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:42:42 +0000 From: Stefano Stabellini X-X-Sender: sstabellini@kaball-desktop To: Sheng Yang CC: Stefano Stabellini , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Ian Pratt , Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] PV on HVM Xen In-Reply-To: <201003121123.33935.sheng@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <201003121123.33935.sheng@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Sheng Yang wrote: > On Wednesday 10 March 2010 23:46:54 Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > Hi all, > > Stefano, > > And next time when you send out the patch, please be more respect to my work. > > You dropped all the original author(me) of patchset, and only add a sign-off > for me. If you don't aware the difference, here is a snippet of > linux/Documentation/SummittingPatches > I am truly sorry and apologise for it, I would never want to give you the impression of being disrespectful of you and your work. If you pay attention I manually wrote in the comments of all the past versions of the patches that you were the original author, this time I just forgot. I guess it is really the time I start using git-send-email :) Your work has been really important for my series and you deserve the credit for it independently from which patch series gets applied. > Another thing is, you were keeping using my old patches as your base, while I > was working with the reviewers to update the patch quickly. I don't think > that's a kind of respect to both reviewers' and my work. You would duplicate > reviewer's effect, especially you always repost the whole patch(and drop my > authorship) rather than the different part. I've split patches in order to > provide a code base for further development, but you complete ignored them and > keeping post the whole patchset based on my old patches. > I don't keep using your old patches as a base but I manually rebase over the most recent patch series you sent every time. Obviously it is not a perfect system and sometimes I can miss something, this is why at the beginning I asked you to work together on the same tree: I wanted to avoid exactly this sort of issues. My intentions are true so my proposal of working on a common tree is still valid, just let me know when you are interested.