| 1 |
On 11/30/2016 01:23 PM, Andrey Utkin wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm quite sure this angry rant won't be pleasant to read for anybody, |
| 3 |
> but still I believe this post serves the good of Gentoo and this issue |
| 4 |
> is technical enough to be discussed on gentoo-dev. Also gentoo-pr list |
| 5 |
> seems retired anyway. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> This is a second time I've got into a situation when a new ebuild |
| 8 |
> submitted by me gets to mainline with minimal changes but not retaining |
| 9 |
> my authorship at all. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> First time it was here: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/361 and my |
| 12 |
> rant was endorsed by monsieurp and the committer made excuses. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> This time the discussion between me and the committer has never |
| 15 |
> happened. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> My PR: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/2765 |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> My bugzilla ticket linked to it: |
| 20 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=599088 |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> After my pull request from Nov 6, the following commit gets into mainline: |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> commit e19f46dfca967f4195eedf3f37a7882fbb37b796 |
| 25 |
> Author: Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> |
| 26 |
> Date: Tue Nov 15 13:55:17 2016 -0600 |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> dev-python/secretstorage: adding for keyring |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Package-Manager: portage-2.3.0 |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> The difference between my submission and final variant by Matthew is big |
| 34 |
> in number of lines, but is trivial in content as you can see below, so I |
| 35 |
> don't believe that Matthew has written his variant from scratch on his |
| 36 |
> own (he hasn't given any note on tickets on bugs.g.o or github), it |
| 37 |
> seems more like intentional swapping and amending original lines |
| 38 |
> retaining identical outcome. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Not that authorship of one or two commits is so crucial for me, or that |
| 41 |
> I'm the most ambitious wannabe-contributor. Hell, there's not much of |
| 42 |
> code at all in the ebuild - it's trivial; but also not much is needed |
| 43 |
> here to give credit. I have contributed to quite some FOSS projects, and |
| 44 |
> have run into theft of my patches a couple of times, and it never was by |
| 45 |
> pure accident. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> I beg affiliated Gentoo developers to stay sane and be thinking not just |
| 48 |
> about numbers of your commits, but also about community spirit and |
| 49 |
> relationships. Of course inexperienced contributor gets things not right |
| 50 |
> first. In such cases, great maintainers fix that and retain original |
| 51 |
> authorship; good maintainers request for changes and resubmission. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> In no way I'm going to drift away from Gentoo because of this issue, no |
| 54 |
> alternatives around. (I even have a gradually maturing idea to become |
| 55 |
> Gentoo contributor on regular basis.) |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> Just for record, a list of projects I've contributed to: FFmpeg, Linux |
| 58 |
> kernel, VLC, GStreamer, Kamailio, Mcabber, Gajim, v4l-utils. |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> [snip] |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
I completely agree that we should credit (and thank) contributors. I'm |
| 65 |
not sure if I'm doing things correctly, but when I'm dealing with a bug |
| 66 |
and users contribute patches or edits to ebuilds, I try to credit them |
| 67 |
in my commit message, often asking them which nickname they'd prefer so |
| 68 |
I can give credit to the "right" name. Is this a practice you find adequate? |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Thanks for bringing this to attention. It's somewhat related to another |
| 71 |
discussion we've been having about copyright, and it may be worth |
| 72 |
considering protocol for situations like the one you've outlined. |
| 73 |
-- |
| 74 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 75 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 76 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives