[Intel-gfx] Intel-gfx Digest, Vol 86, Issue 409

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:01:11PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:44:19PM -0700, intel-gfx-request at lists.freedesktop.org wrote:
> > Send Intel-gfx mailing list submissions to
> > 	intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > 
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > 	http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > 	intel-gfx-request at lists.freedesktop.org
> > 
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > 	intel-gfx-owner at lists.freedesktop.org
> > 
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Intel-gfx digest..."
> > 
> > 
> > Today's Topics:
> > 
> >    1. [PATCH 04/18] drm/i915: GuC firmware loader (yu.dai at intel.com)
> >    2. [PATCH 05/18] drm/i915: Add firmware version check
> >       (yu.dai at intel.com)
> >    3. [PATCH 06/18] drm/i915: Defer default hardware context
> >       initialisation until first open (yu.dai at intel.com)
> 
> There is a lot of work here from both Vinit and myself in these patches, and
> removing my authorship and the notes I made about Vinit's important
> contributions are not appropriate in all the cases. Our SOBs should be retained
> on several of the GuC patches, and authorship should be retained where
> appropriate.
> 
> If you've written a majority of the patch, or vastly changed how the code works,
> then you should change authorship.

And even when the patches are completely rewritten please retain a note
along the lines of "based upon patches from $original_author". Yes I've
recently complained about retaining the original authorship when the patch
is completely rewritten, but removing all trails of the patch's history
isn't the right thing either. Acknowledging other people's contributions
is important.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch