Re: [PATCH 2/2] authz: Stub functions AuthzAccessCheck, AuthzFreeContext, AuthzInitializeContextFromSid, AuthzInitializeContextFromToken
On 25.02.2016 08:50, Alistair Leslie-Hughes wrote:
From: Zhenbo Li litimetal@gmail.com
Moved defines to authz.h
I will assume you typed the definitions in patch 1 yourself, and did not move them from Zhenbo Lis patch - otherwise a remark about authorship would be necessary in 1/2.
Minor cleanup of parameter names.
Signed-off-by: Alistair Leslie-Hughes leslie_alistair@hotmail.com
dlls/authz/authz.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ dlls/authz/authz.spec | 8 +++---- 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
On 26/02/16 02:57, Sebastian Lackner wrote:
On 25.02.2016 08:50, Alistair Leslie-Hughes wrote:
From: Zhenbo Li litimetal@gmail.com
Moved defines to authz.h
I will assume you typed the definitions in patch 1 yourself, and did not move them from Zhenbo Lis patch - otherwise a remark about authorship would be necessary in 1/2.
Yes, patch 1 is mine.
Zhenbo Lis patch only has typedefs to allow it to compile. The original patch is in wine-staging if you want to compare.
Best Regards Alistair Leslie-Hughes
On 26.02.2016 09:00, Alistair Leslie-Hughes wrote:
On 26/02/16 02:57, Sebastian Lackner wrote:
On 25.02.2016 08:50, Alistair Leslie-Hughes wrote:
From: Zhenbo Li litimetal@gmail.com
Moved defines to authz.h
I will assume you typed the definitions in patch 1 yourself, and did not move them from Zhenbo Lis patch - otherwise a remark about authorship would be necessary in 1/2.
Yes, patch 1 is mine.
Zhenbo Lis patch only has typedefs to allow it to compile. The original patch is in wine-staging if you want to compare.
Best Regards Alistair Leslie-Hughes
I think you misunderstood what I meant, I know the original patch where your work is based on - but "Move to" can be easily interpreted as taking parts from Zembo Lis patch, and inserting them in your own patch, which would not allowed without giving attribution.
I know this might sound a bit picky, and I also don't want to claim that you did that. It probably was just a bad choice of words in your mail. Nevertheless, authorship is a topic where we definitely should not be too sloppy. Our current "Signed-off-by" system is flexible enough to allow you and other people to create derived work from draft patches _without_ removing any author information.
Based on the previous discussions in "gdi32: Support Begin/End Path for metafile DCs" where you forgot a From: header and added a Signed-off-by: header to a draft patch without the authors agreement, I'm not really sure if you are aware of what is allowed, and what not. If you have any questions about how to deal with multiple authors, feel free to ask.
Best regards, Sebastian
-
Alistair Leslie-Hughes -
Sebastian Lackner