From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:11:29 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v4 0/3] ARM: CSR: Adding CSR SiRFprimaII platform In-Reply-To: <1310020616-27856-1-git-send-email-bs14@csr.com> References: <1310020616-27856-1-git-send-email-bs14@csr.com> Message-ID: <201107071311.29643.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thursday 07 July 2011, Barry Song wrote: > Changelogs: > -v4: > v3 got "Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann " > stopping the 0xffffffff madness for IO_SPACE_LIMIT > fix .map_io compiling issue in the 1st patch > fix set_next_event in timer.c > rename GPU, USB, multimedia and SATA nodes in DTS > delete redundant 0x in DTS Note that when you get a 'Reviewed-by', 'Acked-by' or 'Tested-by' reply to one of your mails, you should add that in the patch changelog below your own 'Signed-off-by' in order to document it for the future. This ususally still holds true when you make further changes, just not when rewriting major parts of the patch. For the Signed-off-by list, that should normally include only the people that have handled the specific patch, it doesn't imply authorship. Having seven people listed as Signed-off-by seems a bit strange in this context, but there is no clear rule against it. I would probably use 'Acked-by' or plain 'Cc' in the changelog for some of the people, depending in what way they were involved. At the least, you should have 'Signed-off-by' the person that wrote most of the code, followed by the person that sends the patch at the bottom of the list (as you did correctly). Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] ARM: CSR: Adding CSR SiRFprimaII platform Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:11:29 +0200 Message-ID: <201107071311.29643.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1310020616-27856-1-git-send-email-bs14@csr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1310020616-27856-1-git-send-email-bs14@csr.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Barry Song Cc: linux@arm.linux.org.uk, nico@fluxnic.net, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, workgroup.linux@csr.com, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 07 July 2011, Barry Song wrote: > Changelogs: > -v4: > v3 got "Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann " > stopping the 0xffffffff madness for IO_SPACE_LIMIT > fix .map_io compiling issue in the 1st patch > fix set_next_event in timer.c > rename GPU, USB, multimedia and SATA nodes in DTS > delete redundant 0x in DTS Note that when you get a 'Reviewed-by', 'Acked-by' or 'Tested-by' reply to one of your mails, you should add that in the patch changelog below your own 'Signed-off-by' in order to document it for the future. This ususally still holds true when you make further changes, just not when rewriting major parts of the patch. For the Signed-off-by list, that should normally include only the people that have handled the specific patch, it doesn't imply authorship. Having seven people listed as Signed-off-by seems a bit strange in this context, but there is no clear rule against it. I would probably use 'Acked-by' or plain 'Cc' in the changelog for some of the people, depending in what way they were involved. At the least, you should have 'Signed-off-by' the person that wrote most of the code, followed by the person that sends the patch at the bottom of the list (as you did correctly). Arnd