If it was a small fix, I couldn't care less if I don't get credit for my contribution.
However, if its a significant amount of code, it would be considerate that the project maintainer to merge the changes first, then modify in a subsequent commit.
That my two cents.
I lean towards merging as is and fixing afterwards. Or doing a manual merge locally, fix whatever needs to be fixed, and then push to master. There is just something about changing other people's commits that doesn't sit well with me. But maybe there is something about the author/committer feature of Git and how it's intended to be used that I'm not understanding.
Comments
If it was a small fix, I couldn't care less if I don't get credit for my contribution.
However, if its a significant amount of code, it would be considerate that the project maintainer to merge the changes first, then modify in a subsequent commit. That my two cents.
I lean towards merging as is and fixing afterwards. Or doing a manual merge locally, fix whatever needs to be fixed, and then push to master. There is just something about changing other people's commits that doesn't sit well with me. But maybe there is something about the author/committer feature of Git and how it's intended to be used that I'm not understanding.