On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:44:36AM +0000, John Levon wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 01:27:35AM +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > > Putting this DCO question aside, I would find normal that the commit > > message would contains a small note adding something like: > > [This patch was originally written by ...] > > It's in the subject (where it ended up from git format-patch). Dan has > already taken me to task for the format of the commits here. > > > The signed-off-by should be like: > > Signed-off-by: Original Author <author@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: John Levon <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > This sounds awfully like *you've* signed off on *this* patch, but sure, > whatever is the usual way. > The logic there is that everyone who touches the patch has to sign off that they didn't add any Secret SCO Unix Source Code to the patch. > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:49:09AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > It looks like everything was BCC instead of To: and Cc:? I can't tell > > which went to linux-sparse and which smatch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Smatch is > > GPL and Sparse is MIT, but any shared code is MIT licensed. > > I screwed up the mailing (next ones will be better), but they all went > to smatch. As being in smatch and not sparse is of no use to us, I > thought this made sense right now at least until smatch is nearer > upstream. > > > cherry-pick those two patches. Or John, you could cherry-pick them and > > send them to me. `man git cherry-pick`. > > There's a good few more than just two. If you'd prefer, I can work on > taking them upstream first? Upstreaming first is more ideal, but I'll take them as-is if you want. Smatch licensing allows anyone to upstream shared code from Smatch to Sparse after the fact as well. regards, dan carpenter
