From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from buildserver.ru.mvista.com (unknown [85.21.88.6]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9379CDDF51 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 07:04:03 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 23:13:14 +0300 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Josh Boyer Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hwmon for Taco Message-ID: <20080108201314.GA29127@localhost.localdomain> References: <477F1196.7000109@pikatech.com> <1199517763.7291.47.camel@pasglop> <47831868.3030309@pikatech.com> <4783C128.8050103@pikatech.com> <20080108130251.7ae351c7@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 In-Reply-To: <20080108130251.7ae351c7@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Sean MacLennan Reply-To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 01:02:51PM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:30:00 -0500 > Sean MacLennan wrote: > > > Ok, here is the ad7414 only. taco-dtm is no more! > > Cool. Couple more things. > > 1) This should go through the hwmon maintainer. Send it to him. > (CC'ing this list is of course fine.) > > 2) You always need the Signed-off-by: for each patch you send > > 3) If you didn't author the code (this seems to come from Stefan), then > you need the Signed-off-by from the original author. Nope. Signed-off-by means completely different thing. It isn't copyright, it isn't authorship. It's an information (for the history) whom to bother if code appeared to be either: a) broken; b) stolen from the closed source product; c) patented (where applicable). There are Copyright (c) and Author: strings in the files for the credits. If original patch had these strings, then yes, you must keep them. But no one needs author's Signed-off-by, it having zero information you're hinting about. More than that, there were precedents when author insisted on removing his Signed-off-by from the modified patch (when S-o-b used as a permit into someone's tree). Btw, kernel.org is distributing linux tarballs without changelogs, thus without Signed-off-by lines. Nobody complains. Yes, it's common sense and politeness to keep Signed-off-by lines intact (and the order of these lines), but it's not strict requirement. "Based on the patch from ..." is the equivalent of this politeness. > You're getting there :) These are all "newbie" type mistakes so keep > plugging away. > > josh Good luck, -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbou@mail.ru backup email: ya-cbou@yandex.ru irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2