From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Daniel Drake <dsd@laptop.org>,
mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dilinger@queued.net,
pgf@laptop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86, olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:18:46 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <22573.1332865126@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:07:14 +0100." <20120327160714.GA8398@srcf.ucam.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 817 bytes --]
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:07:14 +0100, Matthew Garrett said:
> If a previous author has given a Signed-off-by then they've clearly
> indicated that their code is under an appropriate license and may be
> submitted to the kernel. If someone else then takes that code, modifies
> it and submits it then there's no obvious reason why we still need the
> original Signed-off-by. Giving credit to the original author is
> obviously appropriate, but I don't see why we need any more than that.
Conversely, if a maintainer does fixups on a patch while commiting
it, we *don't* discard the original Signed-off-by. I'd say if somebody's
submitting somebody else's patch, the chain should be:
signed-off-by: original author
signed-off-by: the person who did the updates
signed-off-by: <chain of maintainers heading upstream>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 865 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-27 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-26 18:07 Daniel Drake
2012-03-26 21:29 ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-26 21:31 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-03-26 21:51 ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-27 16:07 ` Matthew Garrett
2012-03-27 16:18 ` Valdis.Kletnieks [this message]
2012-03-26 22:13 ` Paul Fox
2012-03-26 22:45 ` Daniel Drake
2012-03-26 22:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-03-26 23:05 ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-26 22:53 ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-26 23:57 ` Andres Salomon
2012-03-26 23:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-26 23:23 ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-26 23:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-27 4:37 ` Joe Perches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=22573.1332865126@turing-police.cc.vt.edu \
--to=valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dilinger@queued.net \
--cc=dsd@laptop.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mjg@redhat.com \
--cc=pgf@laptop.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®