On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 12:04 +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:53:48 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > > That would be Acked-by where you review it and just confirm its ok by > > you. > > > > Signed-off-by means the patch passed through the hands of the person on > > its way into mainline. The SoC patches that had my signed-off-by line > > were correct as I'd passed them to Liam who collected them, then pushed > > them upstream - the patches passed through both our hands. > > > > In this case (as I understand it), Giorgio wrote some of the code it was > > based on and therefore should get a mention in the commit message and > > headers of the files concerned. If he agrees with the code, he can also > > Ack it. He hasn't been directly part of the chain of submission though. > > In the exact defintion, yes, you're correct. > > But, a patch can be submitted from multiple paths, i.e. I may receive > the very same patch from multiple persons at the same time. In that > case, Signed-off-by isn't completely wrong (except for the time-line > :-) > > Note that we cannot modify the commit log on public Git or HG tree > easily, and sign-offs are in commit logs. So, removing a sign-off > from the public tree should be the very last choice. I understand that. I'm mainly concerned with people getting it right in future which I think it why Liam asked the original question. For the reason you mention, that specific case might need a different handling for the reason you've mentioned. Cheers, Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
