On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:44:36PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:38:47PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 19:13 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be increased > > > > if you could prepare a patch... > > > > Applied to upstream-fixes branch of libertas-2.6 which is destined for > > 2.6.22; I hope you don't mind that I just added the Signed-off-by for > > you. > > Adding a signed off line for a patch that purely removes codes seems > rather pointless to me, but feel free to add it if you care. THe Signed-off-by: document the path a given patch have taken on its way to the final acceptance and does not have any significance whatsoever about the content of the patch. Anyone on the Signed-of-by route may change the patch (and I often do so) without further notice. So judging if a Signed-off-by: should be added or not based on patch content is wrong. It is a patch anyway. That said the legal(in a loose definition of legal) rationale may be of much less significance when trivially removing some code. But we use the same mechanish even to cover spelling corrections. Sam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
