On 10/13/2011 08:23 PM, John W. Linville wrote: > 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 IANALE Gr. AvS
Attachment:
0xB5E1A116.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
