From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.geekisp.com ([216.168.135.169] helo=starfish.geekisp.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9QqS-0006XC-8V for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 01:48:36 +0200 Received: (qmail 30483 invoked by uid 1003); 11 Apr 2011 23:46:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.21.2.135?) (philip@opensdr.com@70.36.246.130) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 11 Apr 2011 23:46:21 -0000 Message-ID: <4DA392CC.4010401@balister.org> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:46:20 -0700 From: Philip Balister User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110307 Fedora/3.1.9-0.39.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Upstreaming patches X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:48:36 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Saul Wold asked me about upstreaming some of the patches in OE. Apparently, Intel has some people who can look at submitting some of our patches upstream. The question is, what do we do about attribution? The problem is that is not simple for many cases working out who created the patch. Rather than spend time chasing through the revision history, it would be simpler to send the patches upstream mentioning the source as derived from OE. My thoughts are no reasonable OE contributor would object to someone else upstreaming their patches :), but I thought I should ask people what they thought. Obviously, if there is a complex patch the situation is different, but I suspect most of the easy patches do not fall into this category. Comments? Philip