From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TsayY-00023y-5p for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:20:45 +0100 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Jan 2013 07:05:12 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,430,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="243460839" Received: from dell-desktop (HELO [10.237.105.59]) ([10.237.105.59]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Jan 2013 07:05:11 -0800 Message-ID: <50EC3725.2060604@intel.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:11:33 +0200 From: Radu Moisan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Burton, Ross" References: <50EC34AF.5010303@intel.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: Enrico Scholz , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/21][RFC v3] systemd Integration X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:20:46 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01/08/2013 04:57 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: > On 8 January 2013 15:01, Radu Moisan wrote: >> I am pretty sure that I added a 'Signed-off-by:' field to my patch but >> it is missing in the commit. Other patches don't have the signed-off-by >> of the original author neither. >> >> Was this removal done on purpose? >> >> >> I had to port the patch manually so I guess it got lost then. Do we want to >> have Sign-off-by from author as well? > By the time the patches land in oe-core there'll have been a lot of > rebasing and merging as I don't intend to see a series that contains > fixes in oe-core. We should ensure that everyone who contributed to > meta-oe gets a credit in the series. > No question about that, the question was whether to add Sign-off-by from the author itself. I know that we are doing it like that right now, but I don't understand it's reasoning. Being the author of a patch what would be the point in adding a Sign-off-by with the same name? I can agree either way, no question about that, just want it to get it clear why we do it like we do it. Radu