On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:38:08PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > * Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070411 22:20]: > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:52:57PM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: > > I don't think we had a clear resolution when we last discussed this. > > > > IMHO this procedure is ok: > > > > - Only add a Signed-off-by if you modified the code. If you're just > > committing someone else's code unmodified, you don't sign-off (but the > > patch creator must have signed-off of course; patches without sign-offs > > must never be committed). > > > > - Any code which gets committed must have at least one Signed-off-by > > _and_ at least one Acked-by. Thus, if you commit other people's code > > unmodified you add your Ack (if and only if you think the code looks > > good, of course). > > What about the case when a patch is slightly reworked. > > I think in this case there should be a Signed-off-by: and an Acked-by: > by the committer.
Yes, I agree. For trivial modifications just add your Signed-off-by (and Acked-by) and commit. For nontrivial stuff, sending a modified patch for review is better/required, of course. Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- linuxbios mailing list [email protected] http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
