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.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxhttp://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
