From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mike D. Day" Subject: Re: Signed-off-by again Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:32:12 -0400 Message-ID: <443ACEDC.4090501@us.ibm.com> References: <443AA3F9.50609@us.ibm.com> <20060410192930.GA12825@leeni.uk.xensource.com> <443AC608.1000505@us.ibm.com> <1144704260.3847.45.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1144704260.3847.45.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.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: Hollis Blanchard Cc: Ross Maxfield , mdday@us.ibm.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Ewan Mellor List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > So in the Linux system, it is OK for Keir to modify (not rewrite) and > add his Signed-off-by after all. Yes after reading the email reference I agree with Hollis , and I was wrong to say that Keir's method was against linux DCO guidelines (it was within guidelines). > > We could follow the Linux system, or something stronger (i.e. no > modifications to other people's patches allowed). I guess it's up to the > maintainers... I still say the right thing in this case is to bounce the patch back to the author (preferably with comments). That way all of us gain the benefit of the dialog. Mike