Hi Graeme, On 11/24/11 09:02, Graeme Russ wrote: > > On Nov 24, 2011 5:48 PM, "Igor Grinberg" <grinb...@compulab.co.il > <mailto:grinb...@compulab.co.il>> wrote: >> >> On 11/23/11 22:12, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> > Dear Stefano Babic, >> > >> > In message <4ecd25ea.1020...@denx.de <mailto: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?
Sometimes, it can be useful to see a part of the delivery path, but as I've said in my other reply in this thread, it is a meter of choice. > > And what difference does it really make anyway? No functional difference... that's for sure. It is more like how we want things to be done. -- Regards, Igor. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
