On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:08:15AM -0700, 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. For my $0.02, having both a Reviewed-by and a Signed-off-by looks a little funny, but it isn't necessarily wrong. The Signed-off-by really only says that you believe that patch is legally contributed. Oh, and IANAL... John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready. -- 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
