svn commit: r407237 - head/mail/imaputils

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:08:26AM -0800, Jason Helfman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > Right, there are few possible combinations like that; usually I try to
> > give attribution in a way that makes the most sense if read naturally
> > (top to bottom).  For example, for the actuall patch submitted by foo,
> > with a related PR (submitted by someone else) it's probably better to
> > put "Submitted by[: foo]" line first, and PR line after. [...]
> 
> I did put a PR in for this issue, which could possibly be leveraged and
> clear the commit confusion.  The PR adds a "Reported by" to the FreeBSD
> template.

I don't see the need to put a reference to PR on a follow-up commit that
just had cleaned things up a bit (avoid needless assignment in this case).

> These are problem reports, and I think it is appropriate to have that
> someone reported a problem report.

Correct, but this is irrelevant to the commit in question (r407237).

> If there is a submission associated with the report, it then is very
> clear that it was reported by one person, and another individual
> submitted a fix.

One of the long-standing traditions of FreeBSD is that we kindly ask folks
not just report the problem ("hey, port foo/bar needs an update!") but also
provide a patch (that is, submission).  Hence in general it is *not* clear
that PR was reported by one person, and another individual submitted a fix:
we simply do not (rightfully) encourage this type of workflow, we ask for
patches. :-)

> I put this in awhile ago, and there was some discussion about it, however
> the PR has not yet been committed at this point. Whether or not this is a
> good solution, or there is something better, is another matter entirely.

Sorry, I don't think I quite understand this paragraph (particularly, which
PR?).

./danfe