On Nov 24, 2011 5:48 PM, "Igor Grinberg" <grinb...@compulab.co.il> wrote: > > On 11/23/11 22:12, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > Dear Stefano Babic, > > > > In message <4ecd25ea.1020...@denx.de> you wrote: > >> > >>>> | (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other > >>>> | person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified > >>>> | it. > > ... > >>>> (a) and (b) don't apply here, and (d) is not relevant in this context. > >>>> So the question is if (c) applies, or not. > >>> > >>> Well, I think yes (c) applies here and if you look into the Linux > >>> git log, you will see that all patches applied by maintainers are > >>> also signed by them. > >> > >> Reading (c), I can interprete as Igor does... > > > > I _can_ interpret that so as well, but does it make sense? > > > > By that logic _all_ commits in the Linux kernel must have the SoB of > > Linus Torvalds. Do they? > > No they should not. > As for my understanding, the delivery path ends with the repository > from which the pull process starts. > That is, the repository that has the *commit id* first set > and then it is not changed, because pull requests keep the > history intact. This is the reason, why Linus Torvalds do not > sign each patch pulled from others with git pull. >
Isn't the committer field enough? And what difference does it really make anyway? Regards, Graeme
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
