Em 03-05-2013 08:20, Ezequiel Garcia escreveu:
Hi Jon,
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 08:58:46AM +0200, Jon Arne Jørgensen wrote:
[...]
You can read more about this in Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I just re-read SubmittingPatches.
I couldn't see that there is anything wrong with multiple sign-off's.
Indeed there isn't anything wrong with multiple SOBs tags, but they're
used a bit differently than this.
Quote:
The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery
path.
Ah, I see your point.
@Mauro, perhaps you can explain this better then me?
The SOB is used mainly to describe the patch flow. Each one that touched
on a patch attests that:
"Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
have the right to submit it under the open source license
indicated in the file; or
(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
license and I have the right under that license to submit that
work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
in the file; or
(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
it.
(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
this project or the open source license(s) involved."
In other words, it tracks the custody chain, with is typically one of
the alternatives below[1]:
Author -> maintainer's tree -> upstream
Author -> sub-maintainer's tree -> maintainer's tree -> upstream
Author -> driver's maintainer -> maintainer's tree -> upstream
Author -> driver's maintainer -> sub-maintainer's tree -> maintainer's tree -> upstream\
In this specific case, as patches 1 and 2 are identical to the ones I submitted,
the right way would be for you both to just reply to my original e-mail with
your tested-by or reviewed-by. That patches will then be applied (either directly
or via Hverkuil's tree, as he is the sub-maintainer for those I2C drivers).
I hope that helps to clarify it.
Regards,
Mauro
[1] when the driver is developed/patched internally on some company's trees,
it is possible to have there also the SOBs for that company's internal
maintainers.
There are also some other corner cases, like patches that are sent in
non-public mailing lists or in private, where everybody in the custody
chain sign it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
