| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Daniel Drake wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > 3. Always record contributions by name |
| 8 |
>> > |
| 9 |
>> > If you commit something in response to a bug report that has been filed, |
| 10 |
>> > always thank the user by full name (and bug number) in the ChangeLog and |
| 11 |
>> > commit message. |
| 12 |
>> > |
| 13 |
>> > Do the above even if you already knew about the bug (i.e. you would have |
| 14 |
>> > committed the same fix even if the user hadn't alerted you). |
| 15 |
>> > |
| 16 |
>> > This also applies for ebuild requests, ebuild submissions, and version |
| 17 |
>> > bump requests/submissions. Might sound pointless for 'trivial' |
| 18 |
>> > reports/requests but it is important to credit the user if they have |
| 19 |
>> > gone to the trouble of filing a bug. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> I don't really get this part. Why should I give credit to someone else |
| 22 |
>> for providing a fix for a bug which I already fixed myself locally? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Maybe not if you have already done the work. I was thinking more of the |
| 25 |
> scenario, upstream does a release. You are on the mailing list so you know |
| 26 |
> about the new version. You decide you'll bump it in portage tomorrow. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Well, the user did the work, too, and doesn't know that you did it (if I |
| 30 |
understand your case correctly). So the user deserves as much credit as you do. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
(At least, from the user's point of view. Consider, if you don't credit |
| 33 |
the user, to the user it just looks like you took the fix and called it |
| 34 |
your own. You know that's not the case, but the user doesn't and likely |
| 35 |
is justifiably upset.) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> The issue I am trying to approach is that the user who filed the bug is |
| 38 |
> likely to check the ChangeLog, and will be mildly upset if they are not |
| 39 |
> mentioned yet it appears that their bug report *may* have triggered the bump. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
By the way, I really like the proposal which triggered this discussion. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Regards, |
| 45 |
Ferris |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
- -- |
| 48 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
| 49 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc) |
| 50 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 51 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
iD8DBQFD79mAQa6M3+I///cRAlZMAJ9F8sew14KN4jmdqwHHVVFrQcYdnwCeMTcD |
| 54 |
r9bihtdF/W7cU8bqMy1OEM8= |
| 55 |
=p+Fd |
| 56 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives