From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 15:31:18 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v4 0/3] ARM: CSR: Adding CSR SiRFprimaII platform In-Reply-To: References: <1310020616-27856-1-git-send-email-bs14@csr.com> <201107071311.29643.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <201107071531.18623.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: > > 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. > > i am sure i know reviewed-by/acked-by/tested-by should be added to the > end. what make me confused here is you are also the maintainer who > will merge these changes into arm-soc and finally make them pulled by > linus. generically,you will get the last signed-off-by too. if i list > "reviewed-by you", you might need to replace it by signed-off-by > finally. > anyway, i'm really not sure whether i am understanding right about that :-) The point is mostly that I tend to pull in patches from git, so I don't add an explicit Signed-off-by to each patch. Also, the meaning of Reviewed-by is stronger than just pulling a git tree, it means that I looked at the code in much detail and am happy with the end result. Simply pulling the patches can mean either that, or that I trust you enough that I didn't bother looking (and/or don't care about the quality). > > 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. > > yes. i understand signed-off-by should only be given to people who > make the essential code changes in the special patch and people who > send or merge the special patch, but not the original author of the > original source files. for the 1st patch which is the basic board > support, in the long history of coding sirfprimaii, all the listed > people have contributed codes. so i get the names of all of them > shown. anyway, it is really too long.... > Not a problem. I basically wanted to make sure you know the rules, and it seemed odd. It's probably ok to leave the list as it is. 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 15:31:18 +0200 Message-ID: <201107071531.18623.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1310020616-27856-1-git-send-email-bs14@csr.com> <201107071311.29643.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Barry Song <21cnbao-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Cc: linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, workgroup.linux-kQvG35nSl+M@public.gmane.org, tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 07 July 2011, Barry Song wrote: > > 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. > > i am sure i know reviewed-by/acked-by/tested-by should be added to the > end. what make me confused here is you are also the maintainer who > will merge these changes into arm-soc and finally make them pulled by > linus. generically,you will get the last signed-off-by too. if i list > "reviewed-by you", you might need to replace it by signed-off-by > finally. > anyway, i'm really not sure whether i am understanding right about that :-) The point is mostly that I tend to pull in patches from git, so I don't add an explicit Signed-off-by to each patch. Also, the meaning of Reviewed-by is stronger than just pulling a git tree, it means that I looked at the code in much detail and am happy with the end result. Simply pulling the patches can mean either that, or that I trust you enough that I didn't bother looking (and/or don't care about the quality). > > 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. > > yes. i understand signed-off-by should only be given to people who > make the essential code changes in the special patch and people who > send or merge the special patch, but not the original author of the > original source files. for the 1st patch which is the basic board > support, in the long history of coding sirfprimaii, all the listed > people have contributed codes. so i get the names of all of them > shown. anyway, it is really too long.... > Not a problem. I basically wanted to make sure you know the rules, and it seemed odd. It's probably ok to leave the list as it is. Arnd