From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 794682055E for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 02:09:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751980AbdJZCJ2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:09:28 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:60053 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751911AbdJZCJ1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:09:27 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8099853B; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:09:26 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=lhlJ2Lrxqq38JtkEvbQvOkvgzaQ=; b=Q62ku5 uKatk1fmvjpQgykqS6K75knRzRHm7DrrQjV0g/CovyQc/TvmpU3YmNh/mV+kgoh3 ZrgrmEfVjvJcGakcPNiMf3JslbxLmzGrWegA9wC6qy/Fli7KydycEgP1KYMrijfT ieBwB4Y+Pt0e2i09VoZ3Z3p/vwo659tnaT6wM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=RBXCz771n3UKL+YVyW10vcSssFdOlvo3 /yv2P5n5A4poVXiT0MYkbyeILOVt4CWMx+OBUnXxRYRhhh8A8cUUc7nC7xKUidiO TbOvx1x9Ema2EQf2iN63CEwlqAiL0phNgPDzZIzsrr/4lYxkkIw8aXINi4IRfRPT JtuV3zrN5+o= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1FE69853A; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:09:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 073E198538; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:09:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff Hostetler Cc: Jonathan Tan , Git mailing list , Jeff King , Jeff Hostetler Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] WIP Partial clone part 1: object filtering References: <20171024185332.57261-1-git@jeffhostetler.com> <4ac6ffd8-60bd-d2bc-6bc1-6c5bb1473416@jeffhostetler.com> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:09:24 +0900 In-Reply-To: <4ac6ffd8-60bd-d2bc-6bc1-6c5bb1473416@jeffhostetler.com> (Jeff Hostetler's message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:39:00 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B0F991D8-B9F2-11E7-B1E2-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff Hostetler writes: > A question of mailing-list etiquette: in patch 9, I took Jonathan's > ideas for adding the "extensions.partialclone" setting and extended it > with some helper functions. His change was part of a larger change > with other code (fsck, IIRC) that I wasn't ready for. What is the > preferred way to give credit for something like this? I think the note you left in the proposed log message This patch is part of a patch originally authored by: Jonathan Tan was a bit misleading. The phrasing makes it sound as if it is more-or-less verbatim copy (either of the whole thing or just a subset) of Jonathan's patch, in which case, keeping the authorship intact, i.e. From: Jonathan Tan ... log message taken from the original, with additional ... note to describe any adjustment you did Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan Signed-off-by: Jeff Hostetler would have been more appropriate. But if you just were inspired by the idea in his patch and wrote a one that is similar to but different from it that suits the need of your series better, then a note left in the log that instead does s/is part of/was inspired by/ would have been perfectly fine. Thanks.