On 2014/12/9 22:19, Ouyang, Changchun wrote: > Hi Bruce, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richardson, Bruce >> Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 5:47 PM >> To: Ouyang, Changchun >> Cc: Thomas Monjalon; dev at dpdk.org >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio implementation >> >> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 06:40:23AM +0000, Ouyang, Changchun wrote: >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 2:12 PM >>>> To: Ouyang, Changchun >>>> Cc: Qiu, Michael; Stephen Hemminger; dev at dpdk.org >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio >>>> implementation >>>> >>>> 2014-12-09 05:41, Ouyang, Changchun: >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Qiu, Michael >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 11:23 AM >>>>>> To: Ouyang, Changchun; Thomas Monjalon; Stephen Hemminger >>>>>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio >>>>>> implementation >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/9/2014 9:11 AM, Ouyang, Changchun wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Thomas, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 5:31 PM >>>>>>>> To: Ouyang, Changchun >>>>>>>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio >>>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Changchun, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2014-12-08 14:21, Ouyang Changchun: >>>>>>>>> This patch set bases on two original RFC patch sets from >>>>>>>>> Stephen >>>>>>>> Hemminger[stephen at networkplumber.org] >>>>>>>>> Refer to >>>>>>>>> [http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-August/004845.html ] >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> the original one. >>>>>>>>> This patch set also resolves some conflict with latest codes >>>>>>>>> and removed >>>>>>>> duplicated codes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As you sent the patches, you appear as the author. >>>>>>>> But I guess Stephen should be the author for some of them. >>>>>>>> Please check who has contributed the most in each patch to >> decide. >>>>>>> You are right, most of patches originate from Stephen's >>>>>>> patchset, except for the last one, To be honest, I am ok >>>>>>> whoever is the author of this patch set, :-), We could co-own >>>>>>> the feature of Single virtio if you all agree with it, and I >>>>>>> think we couldn't finish Such a feature without collaboration >>>>>>> among us, this is why I tried to communicate >>>>>> with most of you to collect more feedback, suggestion and >>>>>> comments for this feature. >>>>>>> Very appreciate for all kinds of feedback, suggestion here, >>>>>>> especially for >>>>>> patch set from Stephen. >>>>>>> According to your request, how could we make this patch set >>>>>>> looks more >>>>>> like Stephen as the author? >>>>>>> Currently I add Stephen as Signed-off-by list in each patch(I >>>>>>> got the >>>>>> agreement from Stephen before doing this :-)). >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ouyang, >>>>>> >>>>>> "Signed-off-by" should be added by himself, because the one who >>>>>> in the Signed-off-by list should take responsibility for it(like >>>>>> potential >>>> bugs/issues). >>>>>> Although, lots of patches are originate from Stephen, we still >>>>>> need himself add this line :) >>>>> Hi Thomas, >>>>> It that right? I can't add Stephen into Signed-off-by list even if >>>>> I have gotten the agreement from Stephen, What 's the strict rule here? >>>> Stephen sent the patches with his Signed-off, then you added yours. >>>> This is OK. >>>> Using git am, author would have been Stephen. To change author now, >>>> you can edit each commit with interactive rebase and "git commit >>>> --amend -- author=Stephen". >>>> No need to resend now. Please check it for next version of the patchset. >>>> >>> So I understand correctly, Stephen need care for from patches from 1 >>> to 16, I need care for the 17th patch from next version. >>> What I mean "caring for" above is: debug and validate them and send >>> out patches >>> >>> Thanks >>> Changchun >>> >> Just to clarify Thomas point here about use of "git am". If you get a patch >> from someone to test or work on, use "git am" to apply it, rather than "git >> apply", since "git am" generates a commit in your local repo and thereby >> maintains the original authorship of the patch. If you do "git apply" and >> subsequently commit yourself, you - rather than the original author - will >> appear as the "author" of the patch, and you need to amend the commit as >> Thomas suggests to fix this. >> >> So in short: >> * git am == good >> * git apply == bad > Thanks very much for the clarification. I will use git am for next version.
BTW, you also can use "git am ./xx/*" to patch a series patch set to your local git tree. Thanks, Michael > Changchun > >
