[Arm-dev] NXP more driver patches on LS2080 SoC
lijun.pan at nxp.com
Fri Jul 15 15:04:59 UTC 2016
This solution is not acceptable to me.
You not only used "git apply", but also changed the commit message of the original patch,
which explains you were quite diligent, not sloppy.
Please use “git am *Lijun’s.patch”, "git rebase -i HEAD~5" and "git push —-force” to correct this error.
After you do that, other users can update their git repo via “git remote update —prune;” to force a update.
It does not change their commit content but their SHA.
I think the author name changes is a very serious problem.
Almost nobody looks at the changelog of the .spec.
What people cares is the author name in the commit message.
So I insist change it back to me (Lijun Pan) at the commit message not just add something in the .spec.
On 7/14/16, 7:00 PM, "Jim Perrin" <jperrin at gmail.com on behalf of jperrin at centos.org> wrote:
>Taking this off-list.
>Hmm, it appears I was sloppy with my git. I did a 'git apply' of your
>patch instead of a 'git am'. No offense was intended, but since it's
>been pushed, fixing it would require a --force (If there's a way to
>rewrite the history without that, please let me know). I would rather
>not break the repo for other users by forcing a history rewrite, however
>I'm happy to add additional lines in the %changelog of the .spec
>referencing the patch, and that it came from you.
>Is that acceptable?
>On 07/14/2016 02:32 PM, Lijun Pan wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>> I see my patch being merged today. But the author was changed.
>> Also I find the previous usb related patch is under your name.
>> I request you change the author back to Me (Lijun Pan) as a respect of
>> my work.
>> _/ _/_/_/_/_/
>> _/ Lijun Pan _/ _/
>> _/ 347-828-1413 _/_/_/_/_/
>> _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/
>> _/_/ _/
>> _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
>> _/ _/ _/
>> _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/
>> _/ _/_/
>> _/ _/
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Jim Perrin <jperrin at centos.org
>> <mailto:jperrin at centos.org>> wrote:
>> On 06/27/2016 05:49 PM, Lijun Pan wrote:
>> > I have reworded #8 in a more understandable way. #8 is necessary
>> > for all the FSL_IFC related configuration on ARM64. #8 only affects
>> > FSL_IFC,
>> > not affecting other vendor's drivers. That being said, #8 is harmless.
>> > I have taken #9 out.
>> > I have attached version 2 of the patch.
>> Looks good. Merged and built as the .29 kernel. This should show up as
>> an update soon.
>> Jim Perrin
>> The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
>> twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77
>> Arm-dev mailing list
>> Arm-dev at centos.org <mailto:Arm-dev at centos.org>
>> Arm-dev mailing list
>> Arm-dev at centos.org
>The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
>twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77
More information about the Arm-dev