From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 02:09:24 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] WIP Partial clone part 1: object filtering
Message-ID: <xmqq3766hd7v.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <4ac6ffd8-60bd-d2bc-6bc1-6c5bb1473416@jeffhostetler.com>

Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> 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 <jonathantanmy@google.com>

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 <jonathantanmy@google.com>

	... log message taken from the original, with additional
        ... note to describe any adjustment you did

	Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
	Signed-off-by: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@microsoft.com>

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.