Leif, 2017-10-11 10:32 GMT+02:00 Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org>: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:53:05AM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote: >> >> I think Contibuted-under: still needs to come first. >> >> >> >> I don't think we have an explicit policy for how to deal with >> >> multi-contributor patches. The ones we do see tend to just keep a >> >> single commit message and list the contributors. >> >> >> >> In Linux. it would be something like >> >> Signed-off-by: Marcin Wojtas <m...@semihalf.com> >> >> [Introduce protocol GUID to force correct driver dispatch order] >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> >> >> Signed-off-by: Marcin Wojtas <m...@semihalf.com> >> >> >> >> I would be quite happy to use the same format here. >> >> >> > >> > Well, Tianocore still conflates authorship with a statement regarding >> > the origin of the contribution. I wonder how this is supposed to work >> > when Linaro engineers such as myself contribute code that was authored >> > by engineers working in member companies, e.g., Socionext. The license >> > and the contract that company has with Linaro give me the right to >> > contribute that code, but that does not make me the author, and I >> > cannot add a Signed-off-by that wasn't present when we received the >> > code (even if I knew the name of the author) >> >> I think it's fairly easy thing, needlessly twisted... How does above >> reflect the requirement to add contributor sign-off to someone else's >> patch (with his authorship and original sign-off - should they be >> removed?)? > > Well, we're not debating this because it's critical for this one > patch, but because it would be useful to have a precedent. >
I'm totally fine with precedences, it's rather your call, whether it's accepted or not :) My three arugments are: - I have still a lot patches ahead and it's very likely such situation may occur again. - Needless to say, it may happen again in the development of other platforms. - Artificially splitting patches seems to me as not really needed and I'm not convinced to its justification. >> Anyway, let's make a quick decision here - should I submit patch with >> linux-like signatures and description? Or should I split the patches? > > Let's put it this way - if you split the patches, you remove this > series from abovementioned discussion :) > If you're ok with it, I'd go with single patch, but I can do it either way - I think I'm not to decide, what's best from maintainers' point of view :) Best regards, Marcin _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
