From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mike D. Day" Subject: Re: Re: [Xen-changelog] If the 'cdrom=' option is specified in the definition file but media is Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:56:52 -0400 Message-ID: <443AC694.6040004@us.ibm.com> References: <443AA3F9.50609@us.ibm.com> <20060410192930.GA12825@leeni.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060410192930.GA12825@leeni.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ewan Mellor Cc: Ross Maxfield , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ewan Mellor wrote: >>> From: Ross Maxfield >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Keir Fraser >>> >> Doesn't this need a Signed-off-by: Ross Maxfield ? > > People have been complaining that a patch should not retain the Signed-off-by > line if the patch has been modified, because they do not sign-off the modified > patch. If a patch needs minor changes before it can be committed, we can > either bounce it back to the author, which seems unnecessarily heavyweight, or > do what Keir's done here, and sign-off the patch himself. The From: line > retains the audit trail, credit, and copyright, and it's clear that Keir > himself thinks that this patch is acceptable. This is not acceptable practice in my opinion. An alternative would be to add an Acked-by: Ross line to verify that the code is still ok'd per the DCO guidelines by the original author. What would be even better is to follow the accepted practice for linux development, which is to bounce it back to the author with comments. In fact, please explain why we don't follow that practice again? If the answer is that it is too heavyweight please think again. Mike Day