Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
> 
>>XFree86 should be taking care not to steal credit for our patches by
>>committing them without proper attribution.
> 
> 
> your standards are inconsistent: your committing the change rather than
> offering commit access to someone who solved a problem that (according
> to the email thread) that had stopped you for some _months_ indicates
> that your whole aim on this is to get credit for yourself.

You must be right, you're always right.  Take a look at the bug I filed 
months ago:

http://bugs.xfree86.org/show_bug.cgi?id=804

=======================================================================
Patch will be attached shortly.  Only effects Cygwin.  Build tested, 
run-time
tested.  Change log entry:

Enable shared build of Xt, Xaw, Xaw6, and Xmu libraries on Cygwin (Ralf 
Habacker).
=======================================================================

Oops, looks like I was not trying to steal credit on that one.

Lets see, that makes three places where I gave proper credit for the 
patch and thanked Ralf for fixing it: 1) The Cygwin/X mailing list, 2) 
The change log for the updated packages, and 3) Bug 804 on bugs.xfree86.org.

At last count, the number of places where you gave proper credit was: 0.

The policy of the xoncygwin tree on SourceForge was that anyone that 
wanted access could have it; Ralf didn't want it since he was busy 
working on porting KDE to Cygwin/X.  Lets get back to the topic at hand: 
your blatant attempt to steal credit and refusal to acknowledge that you 
did so.

> I noted that the comment in the code was properly attributed, no further
> action was needed.

No, that is not good enough.  You should amend your change log entry to 
attribute the patch to Ralf and you should apologize to the X community 
at large for being so sloppy with attributing credit.

Harold