From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757636Ab2CZWyG (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:54:06 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:36051 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752408Ab2CZWyB (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:54:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:53:59 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Daniel Drake Cc: mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dilinger@queued.net, pgf@laptop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86, olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands Message-Id: <20120326155359.e5092006.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20120326180710.8DF9C9D401E@zog.reactivated.net> <20120326142908.c5248aec.akpm@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:45:10 -0600 Daniel Drake wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Andrew Morton > 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 > > or to covert Paul Fox's SOB to a credit line, such as: > > Originally-from: Paul Fox > ==== > > 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 .... The original code was from Paul Fox. I changed it somewhat significantly, and Paul approves of the end result. Signed-off-by: Paul Fox Signed-off-by: Daniel Drake 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.