Re: Signed-off-by again

[Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>]

Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 04:24:20PM -0500, 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.
>>     
>
> You have to consider the intent: it's ok and reasonable for a
> maintainer to adapt a patch in a trivial way for another change he has
> in his tree (e.g., a function prototype changed), but it's neither ok
> nor reasonable for the maintainer to rewrite the patch and keep the
> original SOB.
>   

Having another changeset is so trivial that IMHO one should always just 
hg import the original patch and then add another one on top of it.

Personally, I'm very interested to see the things about a patch that 
warrant modification so I can avoid doing them in my own patches.  
Having that expressed as a separate changeset is very useful (especially 
if it has a nice commit message explaining the reasons for the 
modification).

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> As for the bad IP example - anyone who adds his SOB beyond the
> original author is one of the maintainers, and maintainers are
> implicitly trusted. If you have maintainers who start adding bad IP
> ...
>
> Cheers,
> Muli
>