Really though? Let's look at one of them:

[PATCH 3/7] msm: qsd8x50: add acpuclock code

Please tell me the amount of time it took you to "debug and fix
defects in the code" from the following:
http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=kernel/experimental.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-msm/acpuclock-qsd8x50.c;h=691acdeaad74c2f29927308b8110af7d4dd5070b;hb=refs/heads/android-msm-2.6.37-wip

That is basically a squash of 3 commits (one of which was another
squash of ~20 commits during a cleanup which has all the attributions
in the squash). This file's main authors was Brian, Arve, and myself,
with some contributions from Mike, Iliyan, and Haley from HTC. Doing a
quick-and-dirty grep through the history, the contributions break down
as:
      2 Arve Hj?nnev?g [off-list ref]
      6 Brian Swetland [off-list ref]
     14 Dima Zavin [off-list ref]
      2 Haley Teng [off-list ref]
      1 Iliyan Malchev [off-list ref]
      5 Mike Chan [off-list ref]

Your commit is a:
   git checkout <branch> -- <file> ; git add ; git commit;

--Dima

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Daniel Walker [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 10:04 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:00:28 -0800
Daniel Walker [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 09:56 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:48:27 -0800
Jesse Barnes [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:46:41 -0800
Daniel Walker [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

This isn't what's happening tho. In maintainer land if someone forwards
you a patch then you leave the original author on the patch. They wrote
the patch and your just forwarding it on up the ladder. This isn't the
case with these patches.. I crafted each of the commit I have authorship
on, no one forwarded those commits to me. I'm not taking authorship
credit for any thing I didn't create, although I an giving credit to the
place which gave me the raw material which was Google. From my
experience this is how it's done in Linux ..

I don't know why you're even trying to defend this, just admit you were
wrong and move on.

Trying to claim the author field for these patches for yourself is both
misleading and vain. ?You did not write the code and are therefore not
the author, trying to conflate the author and commit fields in this way
is so misguided I thought you must be trolling when I first saw this
thread.

This is not "how it's done in Linux" at all. ?In this case you're
trying to act like a maintainer by collecting patches and forwarding
them upstream, so you need to preserve authorship and the s-o-b chain.
If you want to take responsibility for the code going forward, great,
but don't pollute the logs with bogus author fields that imply you
wrote the stuff in the first place.

That said, if you did significant work on these before committing them,
then you're right and I'm wrong. ?It *is* fairly common for committers
to change things; and if the changes are significant enough, they claim
authorship and note the original author in the changelog.

So if that's the case here, I apologize, but I didn't see that
explained in any part of the thread I read.

I did a significant amount of work to create the commits and series. I'm
sorry if that's not clear, but it is in fact true.

Changes to the code or just reordering and merging commits? ?If the
former, then I think Christoph's comment applies, if the latter, I
think preserving authorship is still the right thing to do.

I changed both, switching to new kernel API's, clean ups, finding a
minimum set of code for this support, and debugging that and fixing
defects in the code. This wasn't a trivial amount of work to create the
series and commits.

Daniel

--
Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum.