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

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

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:47:08 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> On 03/26/2012 03:45 PM, Daniel Drake 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?  :)
> > 
> 
> My recommendation is:
> 
> Originally-by: Paul Fox <pgf@laptop.org>
> 
> ... followed by Signed-off-by: in the order of patch flow.  Approving a
> patch, when not passing through, is indicated by Acked-by: or Reviewed-by:

I'd be OK with that, but first we should define what "Originally-by:"
means!  I'd want it to mean that a) Paul was the original author and b)
Paul approves the recording of Daniel as the primary author.