On 01/12/16 10:27, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 17:17:16 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Andrey Utkin
>>> I beg affiliated Gentoo developers to stay sane and be thinking not just
>>> about numbers of your commits, but also about community spirit and
>>> relationships. Of course inexperienced contributor gets things not right
>>> first. In such cases, great maintainers fix that and retain original
>>> authorship; good maintainers request for changes and resubmission.
>> I'd have to hunt for where it is written down, but it can't be said
>> enough. We should definitely be trying to acknowledge the
>> contributions of others whenever possible. It is really the only
>> recognition a lot of "external" contributors get, and it is the least
>> we can do. This isn't about copyright or policy or anything like
>> that, but just a nice thing to do, and there is no "threshold" that
>> external contributors need to make.
>> I wouldn't ascribe to malice what is probably just the result of
>> oversight, but it is a good reminder whatever the case may be...
> One more reason to use merge commits for pull requests: original
> author commits with proper authorship will be retained.
> Yes, I know that some people are unhappy with non-linear history,
> but this is how git works, so there is nothing wrong with merge
> commits for user-contributed changes.
Git has distinct 'author' and 'committer' fields for a reason, there's
no reason to not use them. This has nothing to do with merge commits.
In fact, non-merge commits provide a much clearer picture of who did
The former commit was rebased and clearly shows that Andreas authored
the commit and that I pushed it. The latter was part of a merge commit,
and although it retains authorship information provides no *easy* way to
figure out who the responsible dev is.