On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 08:05:29PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: > Hi, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [mailto:bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 7:17 PM > > To: Michal Nazarewicz > > Cc: Andrzej Pietrasiewicz; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Kyungmin Park'; > > 'Felipe Balbi'; 'Greg Kroah-Hartman'; 'Joel Becker'; Marek Szyprowski > > Subject: Re: [RFCv4 PATCH 01/13] usb: composite: add make_group and > > add_function operations > > > > On 11/22/2012 09:48 PM, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > > > I think neither is correct. The reviewed-by tag implies that the > > > person did a careful review of the code as per “Reviewer's statement > > > of oversight” (see Documentation/SubmittingPatches). > > > > > > What actually happens is Kyungmin giving a green light to shipping the > > > patch from copyright stand-point since Samsung is copyright holder and > > > Andrzej has no power to say weather he can or cannot release the code. > > > > > > So logical path the code took was: > > > > > > Andrzej -> Kyungmin -> Andrzej -> linux-usb > > > > Aha. So is Kyungmin a lawyer and not a hacker as I assumed in the first > > place. > > > > > If you look at other patches coming from SPRC (including mine while I > > > was working for Samsung) they all have the same Signed-off schema > > > where the first line is of the author and second is of Kyungmin. > > > > This together with the statement above explains a lot to me. I always saw > > that and wondered how much code he can write. I assumed that Kyungmin was > > some kind of kick-ass hacker that knows all the chips very well and > > therefore writes all of the Samsung code ahead of HW and then is too busy > > with other stuff and so other people in his team push his patches mainline > > and deal with the review. > > I know that other companies work like that, where a small group of people > > does the bring-up and then others take their code and try to merge > > upstream. And this impressed me because Kyungmin is a person and not a > > small group. > > > > Anyway. > > Signed-off indicates that he was involved in code development but he was > > not. As it seems it me, his OKAY is very important why not add him as > > > > Acked-By: ... [copyright] > > > > I added the [copyright] as the subsystem since he did Ack only a part of > > the patch, not the functionality etc. I know that (now) but others might > > not. > > Even though all codes are not tested at internal tree, but most codes are tested internal tree. And these internal tree is managed by me. > That's reason to add Signed-off as internal tree maintainer. > And most of codes from us, I checked it by internal approval process. If you don't feel it's not correct Signed-off scheme. > No problem to replace it with Reviewed-by or Acked-by. No, it is correct that you used Signed-off-by: here. I know lots of managers that have added Signed-off-by: lines to patches, it is not necessary to be a developer of the patch to do this, Signed-off-by: means what it says in the Documentation/SubmittingPatches file. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
