On 04/28/20 12:23, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 14:21:07 -0700, Michael Kubacki wrote: >> I believe I misunderstood the conclusion of which Signed-off-by to include >> in the v1 series discussion - https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/57129. >> >> These patches are taken from a branch on Sean's fork of edk2 as noted in the >> cover letter - https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/58114. Sean has given >> a Signed-off-by on these patches in that branch. >> >> Is the guidance in this case to only include my Signed-off-by? > > Yes. You can only attest to your own legal understanding of a given > situation, not to that of others - so "passing on" attestations given > by someone else in a different context ends up being misleading. > > But this isn't the first time this has been misunderstood - perhaps we > should add an explicit statement to ReadMe.rst (as it will be after > this set) that "When importing patches from external sources, existing > Signed-off-by tags must be stripped out.".
That would be nice. I know I need such a reminder. Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58241): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/58241 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/73251656/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
