[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ftrge0gy.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:00:45 +0200
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: 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, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> 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.
Agreed.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists