And that's before we get into misrepresenting the kernel maintainers words in a way that considerably changes their meaning.
It can, but whether that's the case here or not is debatable and I think what we mostly see here is the OPs unfamiliarity with how LKML deals with tiny patches mailed to the security lists.
Yes, it is. His motivation is very clear:
> Around a year and a half ago, I’ve asked my former company for some time to work on an issue that was impacting the debugging capabilities in our project: gdbserver couldn’t debug multithreaded applications running on a PowerPC32 architecture. The connection to the gdbserver was broken and it couldn’t control the debug session anymore.
This is an incredibly uncharitable description of his motivation:
> If the goal is to fix something to be able to put kernel contributor on your resume
What they wrote in their blog is without value after changing the nature of the exchange with the kernel maintainer to make them look like a dick when nothing of the sort actually happened. It only proves that you can't believe what is in that article.
His motivation is clear – he fixed the bug because it affected him. The fact that he’s pissed off for not getting credit for that bug fix doesn’t change that.
> If the goal is to fix something to be able to put kernel contributor on your resume
This quite clearly was not his goal. His goal was to fix the bug he was experiencing at work. So why are you saying otherwise?
Because I read the article and the exchange between the maintainer and the OP.
It smacks of entitlement and shows a complete unfamiliarity with the kernel development process. Maybe that's all there is to this but to claim a kernel developer 'robbed' a first time contributor when in fact what happened is exactly what you'd expect to happen makes me wonder about the OPs motives, especially because he materially misrepresented the interaction between himself and the maintainer to make the maintainer look bad. It looks like the credits were the goal, and if they weren't then what's the fuss about?
Because that is how fairness works in the minds of most humans. People can have multiple motivations. I go to work to earn cash, but I'd be unhappy if someone else got credit for the work I did.
However, at least I'd have got paid; if I was doing something out of altruism I'd be a lot more unhappy if I didn't get credit for the work I'd done.
Even if this were true, it does absolutely nothing to change the fact that his motivation was to fix the bug he was experiencing at work.
> It looks like the credits were the goal, and if they weren't then what's the fuss about?
You are failing to distinguish between the purpose for doing something and something of value. These are two distinct things. The goal was to fix the bug. The credit is of value. The fact that he is upset about not receiving the value he feels he deserves does not alter what the goal was.
It’s straightforward and obvious that he fixed a bug because it was affecting him. Why are you so eager to deny that?
Sure, but this blog post was written well after that time, and I do not see the OP aiming to be properly credited in the intermediary. That doesn't mean that a more appropriate tag could have been used, I just wonder about the motivations for the post because it clearly isn't either timely or the best venue to address this, especially not in the way in which it was done.
> You are failing to distinguish between the purpose for doing something and something of value. These are two distinct things. The goal was to fix the bug. The credit is of value. The fact that he is upset about not receiving the value he feels he deserves does not alter what the goal was.
Yes, and that's why I'm totally supportive of having a 'Suggested-by' or even a 'Co-authored-by' tag on this. But I'm also aware of the fact that the LKML record alone serves to document the OPs contribution and that nobody has made any claim to the contrary, he is - to all intents and purposes except for the git-log the contributor of some lines of code. That these were modified by the maintainer is something people normally would not have cared that much about. And maybe that should change, but that's so far been roughly the norm for these kind of fixes.
> It’s straightforward and obvious that he fixed a bug because it was affecting him. Why are you so eager to deny that?
Because of (1) the timing, (2) the misrepresentations in the post, (3) the fact that alternative venues were not sought before making some fairly heavy accusations. It looks to me as though the bug fix may originally have been the reason the work was done and maybe the OP or their employer were happy with it but now, so many months later it seems the OP is more focused on the credit.