On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 07:45:19PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 09:29:18AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 09:35:18AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:48:22AM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:46:52AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > > Hello David, > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:54:19PM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:08:59AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > > > > fdtoverlay doesn't have a -t option, so explaining the type formats and > > > > > > > modifier prefixes doesn't make much sense. > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was unsure if I'm supposed to add a signed-off-by line. It's not > > > > > > > formalized in the git repo, so I assume it won't have any juristical > > > > > > > semantic anyhow and I didn't add it. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's true we've never formalized this, but I do generally prefer S-o-b > > > > > > lines to be present. > > > > > > > > > > > > The patch LGTM, so if you could resent with the signoff I'll apply. > > > > > > > > > > Then I wonder about the semantic of the Signed-off-by for dtc. Do you > > > > > believe it has any juristical effect if you don't give it an explicit > > > > > meaning for the project? INAL, but it feels wrong to me to insist on a > > > > > formalism but not having formalized its meaning. > > > > > > > > Well, I'm not really sure what you mean by "juristical effect". > > > > > > For kernel patches (and quite a few other projects that adopted the > > > "Developer's Certificate of Origin", I'd expect that as a maintainer or > > > user of the project you can assume that there are no license problems > > > with the contribution. > > > > > > > AFAIK the S-o-b lines never have any legal force, as such - they're > > > > just a form of documentation that helps to locate the right people to > > > > contact if legal questions show up in future. > > > > > > Even without S-o-b I'm listed in the Author line, isn't that enough for > > > providing a point of contact? > > > > This patch wasn't applied and the S-o-b discussion just died. > > > > In my eyes the options here are: > > > > a) just apply the patch as is > > b) formalize the meaning of S-o-b and then I can resend with my > > signature (assuming I agree to the formalization). > > > > I don't have a strong opinion here, but my favourite would be a) as it's > > less work for me. > > I've been meaning to do (b), but I just haven't gotten around to it. Sorry, it's taken me forever to follow up on this, but I've now posted some patches formalizing the S-o-b process for dtc (along with some other updates to the README. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
