On 10/13/2011 08:08 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 10/12/2011 11:54 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> From: Alwin Beukers <alwin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Wifi.c was empty after previous cleanups, so it was removed. >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Heh, remove Reviewed-by dude. >>> >>> Luis >>> >> >> I had a remark on this in earlier commits. So I am clearly missing the >> point here. The author submitted this change and others for review to me >> and I reviewed it as requested. Hence the Reviewed-by: entry. >> >> I have been given the task to publish these patches and I sign them off >> for the "Developer's Certificate of Origin". Hence the Signed-off-by: entry. >> >> Is there something wrong with this reasoning? > > Yeah this all makes no sense. If someone submits you a patch for you > to review *and* push upstream you simply add *their* SOB first, and > then after that your own. > > Luis > Ok, dude Not trying to be rude, but in my opinion these are two separate things. Your statement is that Signed-off-by: entry also covers the "Reviewer's statement of oversight", but I could not find any confirmation to your statement in the SubmittingPatches documentation. The only miss I see is that the author did not sign off on this patch. Gr. AvS
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
