Re: [PATCH] fdtoverlay: Fix usage string to not mention "<type>"

[David Gibson <david-xT8FGy+AXnRB3Ne2BGzF6laj5H9X9Tb+@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3053 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 07:45:19PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 09:29:18AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 09:35:18AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:48:22AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:46:52AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > Hello David,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:54:19PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:08:59AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > > > fdtoverlay doesn't have a -t option, so explaining the type formats and
> > > > > > > modifier prefixes doesn't make much sense.
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I was unsure if I'm supposed to add a signed-off-by line. It's not
> > > > > > > formalized in the git repo, so I assume it won't have any juristical
> > > > > > > semantic anyhow and I didn't add it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's true we've never formalized this, but I do generally prefer S-o-b
> > > > > > lines to be present.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The patch LGTM, so if you could resent with the signoff I'll apply.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Then I wonder about the semantic of the Signed-off-by for dtc. Do you
> > > > > believe it has any juristical effect if you don't give it an explicit
> > > > > meaning for the project? INAL, but it feels wrong to me to insist on a
> > > > > formalism but not having formalized its meaning.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, I'm not really sure what you mean by "juristical effect". 
> > > 
> > > For kernel patches (and quite a few other projects that adopted the
> > > "Developer's Certificate of Origin", I'd expect that as a maintainer or
> > > user of the project you can assume that there are no license problems
> > > with the contribution.
> > > 
> > > > AFAIK the S-o-b lines never have any legal force, as such - they're
> > > > just a form of documentation that helps to locate the right people to
> > > > contact if legal questions show up in future.
> > > 
> > > Even without S-o-b I'm listed in the Author line, isn't that enough for
> > > providing a point of contact?
> > 
> > This patch wasn't applied and the S-o-b discussion just died.
> > 
> > In my eyes the options here are:
> > 
> >  a) just apply the patch as is
> >  b) formalize the meaning of S-o-b and then I can resend with my
> >     signature (assuming I agree to the formalization).
> > 
> > I don't have a strong opinion here, but my favourite would be a) as it's
> > less work for me.
> 
> I've been meaning to do (b), but I just haven't gotten around to it.

Sorry, it's taken me forever to follow up on this, but I've now posted
some patches formalizing the S-o-b process for dtc (along with some
other updates to the README.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]