From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.151]:53158 "EHLO ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751298Ab1I0NYL (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:24:11 -0400 Message-ID: <4E81D071.5050806@cam.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:32:33 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" , "Hennerich, Michael" , Amit Kucheria , Manuel Stahl Subject: IIO: ownership of patches taking drivers out of staging. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Hi All, I'm putting together a patch set to propose the first step in moving IIO out of the staging tree. I want to take a small set (initially) of representative drivers along for the ride. Now unlike later elements which will consist of git moves (and hence preserve history) those that come with us now will be done by stripping down the drivers and then building their feature set back up as we go. My question here is whether people are happy if I assign authorship of patches for their drivers to them (with appropriate note and sign off from me to explain where they came from). Right now my example set consists of ad799x - Michael's max1363 - mine :) tsl2583 - Amit's adis16400 - Manuel's but with large bits from drivers of mine and Barry Song. I'm fine with it being Manuel's. Copyright notice covers that some of it is Analog's so, Michael, is that fine with you guys? So I need responses from Amit, Michael and Manuel as to whether they mind me setting author of relevant drivers to them? I'd obviously also like sign offs once you have had time to look at them. I'll post an updated tree shortly to github. Thanks, Jonathan