[U-Boot] [GIT PULL] Pull request: u-boot-staging

Igor Grinberg
2011-11-24T07:24:42Z

Hi Graeme,

On 11/24/11 09:02, Graeme Russ wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2011 5:48 PM, "Igor Grinberg" <grinberg at compulab.co.il <mailto:grinberg@compulab.co.il>> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/23/11 22:12, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> > Dear Stefano Babic,
>> >
>> > In message <4ECD25EA.1020508 at denx.de <mailto:4ECD25EA.1020508@denx.de>> you wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> | (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
>> >>>> | person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
>> >>>> | it.
>> > ...
>> >>>> (a) and (b) don't apply here, and (d) is not relevant in this context.
>> >>>> So the question is if (c) applies, or not.
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, I think yes (c) applies here and if you look into the Linux
>> >>> git log, you will see that all patches applied by maintainers are
>> >>> also signed by them.
>> >>
>> >> Reading (c), I can interprete as Igor does...
>> >
>> > I _can_ interpret that so as well, but does it make sense?
>> >
>> > By that logic _all_ commits in the Linux kernel must have the SoB of
>> > Linus Torvalds. Do they?
>>
>> No they should not.
>> As for my understanding, the delivery path ends with the repository
>> from which the pull process starts.
>> That is, the repository that has the *commit id* first set
>> and then it is not changed, because pull requests keep the
>> history intact. This is the reason, why Linus Torvalds do not
>> sign each patch pulled from others with git pull.
>>
>
> Isn't the committer field enough?

Sometimes, it can be useful to see a part of the delivery path,
but as I've said in my other reply in this thread, it is a meter
of choice.

>
> And what difference does it really make anyway?

No functional difference... that's for sure.
It is more like how we want things to be done.

--
Regards,
Igor.