From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35145)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1j5DkR-00012C-NH
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:14:04 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1j5DkQ-0001Gr-LR
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:14:03 -0500
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:42168)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1j5DkQ-0001Gm-II
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:14:02 -0500
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1j5DkQ-0000Uw-ET
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:14:02 -0500
Subject: [bug#37988] why?
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.37988.B37988.15823123851840@debbugs.gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJ3okZ29wFVsM8+1OAVZSpyTwW_6QbLb6=p=NzHHQRYv3aKPVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87blprlr9e.fsf@elephly.net>
In-Reply-To: <87blprlr9e.fsf@elephly.net>
From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:12:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJ3okZ1BwrtKZa8EiwBiuwmmeTy3QrAoLrFPzECgjKc3EqpbVA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Cc: 37988@debbugs.gnu.org

Hi Ricardo,

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 19:39, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:

> > Why did you pushed your commits instead of mines?
> > Especially when they had not fallen in the crack.
> >
> > I sent them the October 30, 2019.
> > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D37988
> >
> > And you commented them the same day:
> > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D37988#26
> >
> > I modified one the November 5th, 2019:
> > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D37988#47
>
> Uh, that=E2=80=99s odd.  I remember working with your r-flow* patches.  I=
 did
> not have my own versions of these patches.  I know this because I had
> not previously encountered flow cytometry.  (I don=E2=80=99t specifically
> remember r-rprotobuflib from this series.)

That's why I found weird the twist. :-)
I thought I did something unexpected and/or there was a special
motivation. And so my "why?". :-)


> My guess is that I wasn=E2=80=99t able to apply them cleanly, so I copy &=
 pasted
> the diff, adjusted as needed, and then forgot to override the commit
> author before pushing :-(

> I=E2=80=99m very sorry to have messed up the authorship here.  This was
> definitely not intended :(

I am ok about the authorship; my salary does not depend on the number
of commits accepted. ;-)
The most important is that the packages end in Guix; who committed
them is less important.


Thanks,
simon