On 11/19/19 1:14 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 11/19/19 12:38 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
From: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <samer.el-haj-mahm...@arm.com>
Add a missing entry for the "Raspberry Pi Compute Module 3+" in
RpiFirmwareGetModelName ().
Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org>
I feel really lost with how the S-o-b are handled.
Signed-off-by, as per https://developercertificate.org/, starts off
with "By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:".
That is only a valid statement at the point of contributing code to a
project. It is also only a valid statement when given by the person
contributing it. Samer has authored this code, but he has not
contributed it.
My own litmus test is the legal usefulness of the statament
"Samer said he signed the contract.".
I just asked clarification on another thread and now see this reply.
Now I understand that while being the author, Samer did not contributed
his code to the project. Then by forwarding his work, Pete is a
contributor signing the certificate. If Samer did not sign the
certificate in front of the project (by posting his work), then Pete can
not sign on his behalf. Phew.
I'd have expected, Samer as the author, signs it. Pete forwards it, then
Leif refactors a bit by extracting a part of the previous bigger patch.
So:
Signed-off-by: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <samer.el-haj-mahm...@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Pete Batard <p...@akeo.ie>
Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org>
What might be confusing you is where a set is collaboratively
developed, or where multiple patch sets are smashed together to be
merged atomically; when someone other than the poster has previously
contributed a given patch to the project but it is being *reposted* by
someone else to the same project, it is customary to include the
original Signed-off-by, since it still applies.
Correct.
Similarly, when non-trivial changes are made by a maintainer (or
whoever reposted the patches), the maintainer *should* add their own
S-o-b - something that is usually done after a line briefly explaining
[which changes were done]
Yes, agreed.
.
(You will however find that different maintainers have different
opinion of what constitutes "trivial".)
Thanks for the clear explanation!
Phil.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#50896): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50896
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/60553572/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
