Re: [PATCH v4] x86, olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:45:10 -0600
Daniel Drake <dsd@laptop.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > s/fix/break/? __"Originally-from" is not a recognised tag. __If this code
> > is based upon an earlier version from Paul then Signed-off-by: is
> > correct.
> >
> > What's going on here? __What are you trying to communicate?
> 
> I'm trying to take Ingo's suggestion, in the thread "[patch 1/8] x86,
> olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands" he wrote:
> 
> ====
> This is not a valid signoff sequence - the 'From: ' author of
> the patch must be the first SOB line.
> 
> The way to do this is either to have a:
> 
>  From: Paul Fox <pgf@laptop.org>
> 
> or to covert Paul Fox's SOB to a credit line, such as:
> 
>  Originally-from: Paul Fox <pgf@laptop.org>
> ====
> 
> The original code was from Paul Fox. I changed it somewhat
> significantly, and Paul approves of the end result.
> Can someone suggest a way of expressing this, including tag ordering,
> that will be accepted by all parties?  :)

From: Daniel Drake <dsd@laptop.org>

....

The original code was from Paul Fox.  I changed it somewhat
significantly, and Paul approves of the end result.

Signed-off-by: Paul Fox <pgf@laptop.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Drake <dsd@laptop.org>


If I see a changelog like that, I will assume that Paul is OK with you
having the primary authorship (although some suspicion remains ;)). 
Especially when both individuals are from the same organization.

You could swap the order of the Signed-off-by: lines, but the ordering
of those lines isn't at all a reliable indication of anything.  So
nobody should actually *use* the ordering for any purpose.  It is best
to explicitly clarify these things in the changelog text.