Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

[Michael Mol]

On Thursday, December 01, 2016 10:13:17 PM Andrey Utkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 12:50:42PM -0800, Daniel Campbell wrote:

[snip]

> > Thanks for bringing this to attention. It's somewhat related to another
> > discussion we've been having about copyright, and it may be worth
> > considering protocol for situations like the one you've outlined.
> 
> Could you  please give a link to archives of that discussion?

It looks like there's two of them. Daniel's probably thinking of this one:

https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/d58dd815aa48df69afb9d096754c0d04


But this one is also relevant:

https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/63dcd62b33080a2e29f1ec4f3b484b51

(Deep linking in the second thread, as that's when copyright was first brought 
up in it, dealing with DCOs.)

-- 
:wq

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

[Daniel Campbell]

On 12/01/2016 02:13 PM, Andrey Utkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 12:50:42PM -0800, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> I completely agree that we should credit (and thank) contributors. I'm
>> not sure if I'm doing things correctly, but when I'm dealing with a bug
>> and users contribute patches or edits to ebuilds, I try to credit them
>> in my commit message, often asking them which nickname they'd prefer so
>> I can give credit to the "right" name. Is this a practice you find adequate?
> 
> As turned out, the problem was lack of communication rather than
> misprocessing of original contribution.
> 
> In Git, t's harder to erase the original authorship than to retain it,
> so I don't see the need to discuss subtleties here. Common practice I
> see in such projects as FFmpeg and Kernel is to pick the original patch
> if possible, or, if credit must be given just for mere concept, the
> contributor is mentioned in "Suggested-by:" line or just informally.
> 
>> Thanks for bringing this to attention. It's somewhat related to another
>> discussion we've been having about copyright, and it may be worth
>> considering protocol for situations like the one you've outlined.
> 
> Could you  please give a link to archives of that discussion?
> 
I'm a little busy this afternoon, but I have the subject titles for a
few of the relevant posts:

[gentoo-dev] Contributed ebuilds and copyright questions
(Oct 24th)

[gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions
(Oct 27th)

I remember one more, I believe started by rich0? But it's not in my mail
client anymore as I routinely purge older discussions. I can look for it
tonight if you'd like.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

[Andrey Utkin]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 12:50:42PM -0800, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> I completely agree that we should credit (and thank) contributors. I'm
> not sure if I'm doing things correctly, but when I'm dealing with a bug
> and users contribute patches or edits to ebuilds, I try to credit them
> in my commit message, often asking them which nickname they'd prefer so
> I can give credit to the "right" name. Is this a practice you find adequate?

As turned out, the problem was lack of communication rather than
misprocessing of original contribution.

In Git, t's harder to erase the original authorship than to retain it,
so I don't see the need to discuss subtleties here. Common practice I
see in such projects as FFmpeg and Kernel is to pick the original patch
if possible, or, if credit must be given just for mere concept, the
contributor is mentioned in "Suggested-by:" line or just informally.

> Thanks for bringing this to attention. It's somewhat related to another
> discussion we've been having about copyright, and it may be worth
> considering protocol for situations like the one you've outlined.

Could you  please give a link to archives of that discussion?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

[Daniel Campbell]

On 11/30/2016 01:23 PM, Andrey Utkin wrote:
> I'm quite sure this angry rant won't be pleasant to read for anybody,
> but still I believe this post serves the good of Gentoo and this issue
> is technical enough to be discussed on gentoo-dev. Also gentoo-pr list
> seems retired anyway.
> 
> This is a second time I've got into a situation when a new ebuild
> submitted by me gets to mainline with minimal changes but not retaining
> my authorship at all.
> 
> First time it was here: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/361 and my
> rant was endorsed by monsieurp and the committer made excuses.
> 
> This time the discussion between me and the committer has never
> happened.
> 
> My PR: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/2765
> 
> My bugzilla ticket linked to it:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=599088
> 
> After my pull request from Nov 6, the following commit gets into mainline:
> 
> commit e19f46dfca967f4195eedf3f37a7882fbb37b796
> Author: Matthew Thode 
> Date:   Tue Nov 15 13:55:17 2016 -0600
> 
> dev-python/secretstorage: adding for keyring
> 
> Package-Manager: portage-2.3.0
> 
> 
> The difference between my submission and final variant by Matthew is big
> in number of lines, but is trivial in content as you can see below, so I
> don't believe that Matthew has written his variant from scratch on his
> own (he hasn't given any note on tickets on bugs.g.o or github), it
> seems more like intentional swapping and amending original lines
> retaining identical outcome.
> 
> Not that authorship of one or two commits is so crucial for me, or that
> I'm the most ambitious wannabe-contributor. Hell, there's not much of
> code at all in the ebuild - it's trivial; but also not much is needed
> here to give credit. I have contributed to quite some FOSS projects, and
> have run into theft of my patches a couple of times, and it never was by
> pure accident.
> 
> 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.
> 
> In no way I'm going to drift away from Gentoo because of this issue, no
> alternatives around. (I even have a gradually maturing idea to become
> Gentoo contributor on regular basis.)
> 
> Just for record, a list of projects I've contributed to: FFmpeg, Linux
> kernel, VLC, GStreamer, Kamailio, Mcabber, Gajim, v4l-utils.
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 

I completely agree that we should credit (and thank) contributors. I'm
not sure if I'm doing things correctly, but when I'm dealing with a bug
and users contribute patches or edits to ebuilds, I try to credit them
in my commit message, often asking them which nickname they'd prefer so
I can give credit to the "right" name. Is this a practice you find adequate?

Thanks for bringing this to attention. It's somewhat related to another
discussion we've been having about copyright, and it may be worth
considering protocol for situations like the one you've outlined.
-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

[Andrey Utkin]

Hi Matthew,

Please take my deepest excuses for unjustly blaming you, now I see that
my perception was plain wrong in being so blindly emotional.

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:43:36PM -0600, Matthew Thode wrote:
> While I did see your PR and bug if I remember correctly I didn't
> actually use your commit or your ebuild to source it.  I added it based
> on the bug iirc (which is still waiting on the link it seems).

Indeed, the link to PR was never added to bugzilla ticket, which is odd
on my side. I guess I could have connectivity issues back then.

> I should
> have mentioned that bug at the very least though and/or worked with you
> on the ebuild.

> Again, sorry about not updating the bug or waiting to work with you on
> the PR.  If there's something else I can do for this let me know.

Again sorry for false accusation and not getting in touch with you
before starting public discussion.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

[james]

On 11/30/2016 05:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Andrey Utkin  wrote:


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...


+

As an old 'C' hack, 99.999% of what I've written is hardware centric and 
not publically published. A good 95% of it is covered by NDAs and
ownership/rights as transferred codes. Often I can only speak to 
potential negotiators of opportunity, in a generic way about a variety 
of codes and technologies.



Many of today's potential employers want to see the open source 
contributions of potential employees/contractors; I get that. So it is 
quintessentially important that these sorts of contributors have a list 
of easy to review works and contributions to show potential employers. 
Perhaps their own overlay where their works and contributions are 
duplicated for easy viewing by a potential employer? (I'm certainly not
a git-architect) but there is a valid need and this documentation trail 
would only serve to attract more potential to gentoo's projects.



Me, I have a lab full of home-made prototypes and who's who list of 
EE/CS developers and leaders that I can tap, if I feel the need. I can 
talk deeply about chipsets and the sorry codes developed by the OEMs 
(sorry_moto) which were directly embedded into compromise-able routers 
(like cisco) and such juicy tidbits. Or, I have deeply secretive stories 
(antidotes) of stories behind the story, than can curl the ear-hairs of 
most CIO/CT0. But for the youthful devs, it would be very cool if a 
mechanism/system was deployed at Gentoo for those aspiring devs to 
enhance their resumes, kinda like a personally attributable changelog or 
such.



Story telling comes with age and wisdom. knowing when to give the 
credit to another..



hth,
James

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 9:23:56 PM EST Andrey Utkin wrote:
> I'm quite sure this angry rant won't be pleasant to read for anybody,
> but still I believe this post serves the good of Gentoo and this issue
> is technical enough to be discussed on gentoo-dev. Also gentoo-pr list
> seems retired anyway.
> 
> This is a second time I've got into a situation when a new ebuild
> submitted by me gets to mainline with minimal changes but not retaining
> my authorship at all.

IMHO this is someone Recruiting should be tracking and getting in touch with. 
Recruiting should be proactively looking for contributors and encouraging them 
to become Developers. That way there is no need to proxy and any potential 
issues that can arise from such.

Less contributors, more developers :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

[Andrey Utkin]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 02:27:17AM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> 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.

Hi Andrew,

I don't see this subject as valid reason to prefer merge commits over
rebases. Personally I prefer linear history and rebases.

I had a commercial project in my practice which was based on Github, and
other developers submitted pull requests. My workflow was to rebase the
proposed changes onto mainline branch (which of course preserves
authorship data), push the updated mainline branch to central repo, and
close the PR manually. Not much of work, linear history, git metadata
preserved.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

[Matthew Thode]

On 11/30/2016 03:23 PM, Andrey Utkin wrote:
> I'm quite sure this angry rant won't be pleasant to read for anybody,
> but still I believe this post serves the good of Gentoo and this issue
> is technical enough to be discussed on gentoo-dev. Also gentoo-pr list
> seems retired anyway.
> 
> This is a second time I've got into a situation when a new ebuild
> submitted by me gets to mainline with minimal changes but not retaining
> my authorship at all.
> 
> First time it was here: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/361 and my
> rant was endorsed by monsieurp and the committer made excuses.
> 
> This time the discussion between me and the committer has never
> happened.
> 
> My PR: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/2765
> 
> My bugzilla ticket linked to it:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=599088
> 
> After my pull request from Nov 6, the following commit gets into mainline:
> 
> commit e19f46dfca967f4195eedf3f37a7882fbb37b796
> Author: Matthew Thode 
> Date:   Tue Nov 15 13:55:17 2016 -0600
> 
> dev-python/secretstorage: adding for keyring
> 
> Package-Manager: portage-2.3.0
> 
> 
> The difference between my submission and final variant by Matthew is big
> in number of lines, but is trivial in content as you can see below, so I
> don't believe that Matthew has written his variant from scratch on his
> own (he hasn't given any note on tickets on bugs.g.o or github), it
> seems more like intentional swapping and amending original lines
> retaining identical outcome.
> 
> Not that authorship of one or two commits is so crucial for me, or that
> I'm the most ambitious wannabe-contributor. Hell, there's not much of
> code at all in the ebuild - it's trivial; but also not much is needed
> here to give credit. I have contributed to quite some FOSS projects, and
> have run into theft of my patches a couple of times, and it never was by
> pure accident.
> 
> 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.
> 
> In no way I'm going to drift away from Gentoo because of this issue, no
> alternatives around. (I even have a gradually maturing idea to become
> Gentoo contributor on regular basis.)
> 
> Just for record, a list of projects I've contributed to: FFmpeg, Linux
> kernel, VLC, GStreamer, Kamailio, Mcabber, Gajim, v4l-utils.
> 
> 
> diff --git a/336a45f661 b/98c5361d66
> index 336a45f661..98c5361d66 100644
> --- a/336a45f661
> +++ b/98c5361d66
> @@ -1,19 +1,27 @@
> -# Copyright 2016 Gentoo Foundation
> +# Copyright 1999-2016 Gentoo Foundation
>  # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
>  # $Id$
>  
> -EAPI="6"
> -PYTHON_COMPAT=( python2_7 python3_{3,4,5} )
> +EAPI=6
> +PYTHON_COMPAT=( python{2_7,3_4,3_5} )
>  
>  inherit distutils-r1
>  
> -DESCRIPTION="Python bindings to FreeDesktop.org Secret Service API"
> -HOMEPAGE="http://pypi.python.org/pypi/SecretStorage;
> -SRC_URI="mirror://pypi/${PN:0:1}/${PN}/${P}.tar.gz"
> +MY_PN="SecretStorage"
> +
> +DESCRIPTION="Python bindings to FreeDesktop.org Secret Service API."
> +HOMEPAGE="https://github.com/mitya57/secretstorage 
> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/SecretStorage;
> +SRC_URI="mirror://pypi/S/${MY_PN}/${MY_PN}-${PV}.tar.gz"
>  
>  LICENSE="BSD"
>  SLOT="0"
> -KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~x86"
> +KEYWORDS="amd64 ~arm64 x86 ~amd64-linux ~x86-linux"
> +IUSE=""
> +
> +DEPEND="dev-python/setuptools[${PYTHON_USEDEP}]"
> +
> +RDEPEND="
> + dev-python/cryptography[${PYTHON_USEDEP}]
> + dev-python/dbus-python[${PYTHON_USEDEP}]"
>  
> -RDEPEND="dev-python/dbus-python[${PYTHON_USEDEP}]
> - dev-python/cryptography[${PYTHON_USEDEP}]"
> +S="${WORKDIR}/${MY_PN}-${PV}"
> 

While I did see your PR and bug if I remember correctly I didn't
actually use your commit or your ebuild to source it.  I added it based
on the bug iirc (which is still waiting on the link it seems).  I should
have mentioned that bug at the very least though and/or worked with you
on the ebuild.

Generally if committing from the community I will cherry-pick, which
does retain authorship.

Again, sorry about not updating the bug or waiting to work with you on
the PR.  If there's something else I can do for this let me know.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

[Andrew Savchenko]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 17:17:16 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Andrey Utkin  
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko


pgpcYPgLN8pRY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

[Sam Jorna]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 09:23:56PM +, Andrey Utkin wrote:
> The difference between my submission and final variant by Matthew is big
> in number of lines, but is trivial in content as you can see below, so I
> don't believe that Matthew has written his variant from scratch on his
> own (he hasn't given any note on tickets on bugs.g.o or github), it
> seems more like intentional swapping and amending original lines
> retaining identical outcome.
> 
> Not that authorship of one or two commits is so crucial for me, or that
> I'm the most ambitious wannabe-contributor. Hell, there's not much of
> code at all in the ebuild - it's trivial; but also not much is needed
> here to give credit. I have contributed to quite some FOSS projects, and
> have run into theft of my patches a couple of times, and it never was by
> pure accident.

Though I wasn't involved in these commits, I have seen how easy and
accidental it is to lose authorship information on a commit. That being
said, finding where to draw the line on authorship can be difficult.

I'm not sure how many others are aware of this, but I'll mention it just
in case: provided it's done before pushing commits, the commit metadata
and message can be amended locally with

  git commit --amend --author="Joe Smith "

This will update the Author tag but leave the Committer tag untouched
(and will allow fixing any problems with the commit message itself).
Amending commits that are not the tip of your local clone will probably
need an interactive rebase though (but I could be wrong about that).

-- 
Sam Jorna (wraeth)
GPG ID: 0xD6180C26


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

[Mart Raudsepp]

Ühel kenal päeval, K, 30.11.2016 kell 21:23, kirjutas Andrey Utkin:
> My PR: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/2765
> 
> My bugzilla ticket linked to it:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=599088
> 
> After my pull request from Nov 6, the following commit gets into
> mainline:
> 
> commit e19f46dfca967f4195eedf3f37a7882fbb37b796
> Author: Matthew Thode 
> Date:   Tue Nov 15 13:55:17 2016 -0600
> 
> dev-python/secretstorage: adding for keyring
> 
> Package-Manager: portage-2.3.0
> 
> 
> The difference between my submission and final variant by Matthew is
> big
> in number of lines, but is trivial in content as you can see below,
> so I
> don't believe that Matthew has written his variant from scratch on
> his
> own (he hasn't given any note on tickets on bugs.g.o or github), it
> seems more like intentional swapping and amending original lines
> retaining identical outcome.

The diff posted shows almost the maximum amount of differences possible
for an ebuild of this kind imho. There literally is nothing else than
usage of eclasses and listing of depends, and all the spacing and some
order is different even there. If I go and create an ebuild from
scratch without being aware at all of any other ebuild for it being
there and never having looked at either, it would probably be either
identical to yours, or identical to Matthew's.
So I would say it is entirely possible he simply did not know of the
existing work and just created a simple ebuild from scratch.
This work itself is something I wouldn't even consider copyrightable
(as mentioned in some other threads on that topic).

That said, if the existing work was being based on, attribution should
have been done, but that's something only he knows if he looked at your
work or not. He seems to have had to add it as a keyring dep; given
it's simplicity, might have just done the ebuild from scratch in 5
minutes.
At least after (or rather before) doing the work, searching for
existing bugzilla bugs for that package would have been nice.

The first occurrence seems to have more merit for concern, as it is a
recorded fact that your work was looked upon for doing it. However it
does give credit in the commit message (even summary), just no
authorship information towards you in git metadata, as your ideas were
taken and rewritten (new authorship) on top of existing release ebuild
and credited as a link to the PR. For perfection, a Thanks tag or some
other tag towards you (Cc?) by name and e-mail would have been nice,
though.

Overall, it is very appreciated you are contributing, and it does bring
up a topic we should be more careful about in general. Maybe some
documentation and part of quizzes for push access even.
Though the individual cases here brought as example seem not a big
point of concern (in one case a credit was given, in a way; in the
other it might have been very well individual work), but I do think
there could very easily be cases of developers taking someone's work
and not thinking of proper attribution, even if just from not thinking
about it.



Thanks for your contributions!


Mart

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Andrey Utkin  wrote:
>
> 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...

-- 
Rich

[gentoo-dev] Please retain authorship of contributed patches

[Andrey Utkin]

I'm quite sure this angry rant won't be pleasant to read for anybody,
but still I believe this post serves the good of Gentoo and this issue
is technical enough to be discussed on gentoo-dev. Also gentoo-pr list
seems retired anyway.

This is a second time I've got into a situation when a new ebuild
submitted by me gets to mainline with minimal changes but not retaining
my authorship at all.

First time it was here: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/361 and my
rant was endorsed by monsieurp and the committer made excuses.

This time the discussion between me and the committer has never
happened.

My PR: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/2765

My bugzilla ticket linked to it:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=599088

After my pull request from Nov 6, the following commit gets into mainline:

commit e19f46dfca967f4195eedf3f37a7882fbb37b796
Author: Matthew Thode 
Date:   Tue Nov 15 13:55:17 2016 -0600

dev-python/secretstorage: adding for keyring

Package-Manager: portage-2.3.0


The difference between my submission and final variant by Matthew is big
in number of lines, but is trivial in content as you can see below, so I
don't believe that Matthew has written his variant from scratch on his
own (he hasn't given any note on tickets on bugs.g.o or github), it
seems more like intentional swapping and amending original lines
retaining identical outcome.

Not that authorship of one or two commits is so crucial for me, or that
I'm the most ambitious wannabe-contributor. Hell, there's not much of
code at all in the ebuild - it's trivial; but also not much is needed
here to give credit. I have contributed to quite some FOSS projects, and
have run into theft of my patches a couple of times, and it never was by
pure accident.

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.

In no way I'm going to drift away from Gentoo because of this issue, no
alternatives around. (I even have a gradually maturing idea to become
Gentoo contributor on regular basis.)

Just for record, a list of projects I've contributed to: FFmpeg, Linux
kernel, VLC, GStreamer, Kamailio, Mcabber, Gajim, v4l-utils.


diff --git a/336a45f661 b/98c5361d66
index 336a45f661..98c5361d66 100644
--- a/336a45f661
+++ b/98c5361d66
@@ -1,19 +1,27 @@
-# Copyright 2016 Gentoo Foundation
+# Copyright 1999-2016 Gentoo Foundation
 # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
 # $Id$
 
-EAPI="6"
-PYTHON_COMPAT=( python2_7 python3_{3,4,5} )
+EAPI=6
+PYTHON_COMPAT=( python{2_7,3_4,3_5} )
 
 inherit distutils-r1
 
-DESCRIPTION="Python bindings to FreeDesktop.org Secret Service API"
-HOMEPAGE="http://pypi.python.org/pypi/SecretStorage;
-SRC_URI="mirror://pypi/${PN:0:1}/${PN}/${P}.tar.gz"
+MY_PN="SecretStorage"
+
+DESCRIPTION="Python bindings to FreeDesktop.org Secret Service API."
+HOMEPAGE="https://github.com/mitya57/secretstorage 
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/SecretStorage;
+SRC_URI="mirror://pypi/S/${MY_PN}/${MY_PN}-${PV}.tar.gz"
 
 LICENSE="BSD"
 SLOT="0"
-KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~x86"
+KEYWORDS="amd64 ~arm64 x86 ~amd64-linux ~x86-linux"
+IUSE=""
+
+DEPEND="dev-python/setuptools[${PYTHON_USEDEP}]"
+
+RDEPEND="
+   dev-python/cryptography[${PYTHON_USEDEP}]
+   dev-python/dbus-python[${PYTHON_USEDEP}]"
 
-RDEPEND="dev-python/dbus-python[${PYTHON_USEDEP}]
-   dev-python/cryptography[${PYTHON_USEDEP}]"
+S="${WORKDIR}/${MY_PN}-${PV}"