<div dir="ltr">On 19 January 2018 at 13:57, Oleg Kokorin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ole2mail@mail.com" target="_blank">ole2mail@mail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:12.0px"><div>
<div>I've got the points and re-sent the patch, but I'd like to add mine:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>by adding complexity instead of taking care of git and specifically send-email command providing necessary portions you'd like to have in patch in automated manner - you are decrising number of participants significantly.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Re-adding oe-core again.</div><div><br></div><div>How can git know that you're the original author of the patch and didn't just copy/paste? How can git know that you've hacked a workaround, or backported a fix from upstream?</div><div><br></div><div>I'm fine with a small barrier to contributions when it means that in five years time I'm not scratching my head at a patch with lost history, no comments, no ownership, no indication whether it's a workaround or should be sent upstream, wondering what it was meant to do.</div><div><br></div><div>There are still plenty of patches like that in oe-core, where the history disappears into BitKeeper repositories that nobody has anymore.</div><div><br></div><div>Ross</div></div></div></div>