3 ms·
To me there's a difference between having a commit bit ("kernel contributor status") and having a contribution that was accepted into the kernel. Now to look a
by FireBeyond 3y ago
To me there's a difference between having a commit bit ("kernel contributor status") and having a contribution that was accepted into the kernel.
Now to look at this patch it looks Michael took the report, debugged, tested, and resolved the issue, when all he actually did is move a single line to outside of a conditional.
> and required work shows a different set of expectations
You're really stretching here, the only "required work" missing was a sign off, which Michael could have given.
In any other environment, this would be plagiarism. And it looks morally poor.
- jacquesm 3y agoWell, we're going to have to differ on that then. Michael - in my opinion - properly credited the OP for his contribution, he could have done a longer back and forth to coach the OP to present the 'perfect patch' but this is the wrong venue for that. Besides that the OP misrepresented the interaction to a degree that he loses my sympathy, he makes the maintainer come off like a dick when in fact that wasn't the case at all, the interchange was polite and to the point and exactly in line with what I'd expect from a kernel maintainer.
- dcow 3y ago[flagged]
- yencabulator 3y ago> To me there's a difference between having a commit bit ("kernel contributor status") and having a contribution that was accepted into the kernel. Who do you think has the commit bit on the Linux repo? Hint: kernel contributors don't.