[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903211537340.1784@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:37:57 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Explicitly state ordering requirements for
Co-developed-by
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:30:10PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Hmm, and my experience is exclusively limited to contributing code to
> someone else's patches. Rather than dictate exact ordering, what about
> deferring to standard sign-off procedure?
>
> E.g.:
>
> A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
> along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people
> work on a single patch. Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a
> Signed-off-by: of the co-author(s). As per standard sign-off procedure, the
> ordering of Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs should reflect the patch's
> handling insofar as possible. Notably, the last Signed-off-by: must always be
> that of the developer submitting the patch, regardless of whether they are the
> original author or a co-author.
Yes, that makes sense.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists