"Stephen P. Smith" <isch...@cox.net> writes: > On Friday, September 7, 2018 3:31:55 PM MST you wrote: >> Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > >> The patch is mostly for illustration of the idea. >> >> The result seems to compile and pass the test suite, but I haven't >> carefully thought about what else I may be breaking with this >> mechanical change. For example, I noticed that both of the old >> callsites of wt_status_get_state() have free() of a few fiedls in >> the structure, and I kept the code as close to the original, but I >> suspect they should not be freed there in the functions in the >> "print" phase, but rather the caller of the "collect" and "print" >> should be made responsible for deciding when to dispose the entire >> wt_status (and wt_status_state as part of it). This illustration >> patch does not address that kind of details (yet). > > If we use this as a basis of a follow on patch, how do I handle credit. You > obviously wrote this patch and I did not.
Often people just mention "This was based on an earlier work by ..." at/near the end of the log message. When the result ends up to be very different from the earlier work, just adding "Helped-by: ..." before your sign-off is often sufficient.
