lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] docs: Explicitly state ordering requirements for Co-developed-by
Date
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:30:10PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> Hmm, and my experience is exclusively limited to contributing code to
>> someone else's patches. Rather than dictate exact ordering, what about
>> deferring to standard sign-off procedure?
>>
>> E.g.:
>>
>> A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
>> along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people
>> work on a single patch. Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a
>> Signed-off-by: of the co-author(s). As per standard sign-off procedure, the
>> ordering of Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs should reflect the patch's
>> handling insofar as possible. Notably, the last Signed-off-by: must always be
>> that of the developer submitting the patch, regardless of whether they are the
>> original author or a co-author.
>
> Yes, that makes sense.

Agreed.

BR,
Jani.

--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-21 15:59    [W:0.033 / U:0.584 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site