On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:43:14AM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote:
> >> 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 :)
For now, I would take the single patch with Linux-style description,
like the example I sent earlier.
/
Leif
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
