On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 03:13:17PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 03:21:30PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 04/07/2023 15:16, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:27:57PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > >> Also see: > > >> "every Co-developed-by: must be immediately > > >> followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author." > > > >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L467 > > > > Oh, that seems unhelpful especially with it not lining up with the DCO. > > > I assume the intention was here that if I attribute some co-author with > > Co-developed-by, then I know that author, therefore I expect author to > > explicitly participate in DCO chain. > > Why? They're not the one sending the patch out, nor are they relying on > someone else having certified anything. It's probably safe to say that StarFive owns the contributions anyway, so I doubt adding really makes a difference here. > > Otherwise, just drop the Co-developed-by. > > It seems separately useful. Yup, I'd rather have the people there if I ever have to run `git blame` on whatever commit this becomes.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
