On 12 March 2014 17:31, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-12 17:58, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 26.07.2013 20:26, schrieb Jan Kiszka: >>> Based on original version by Fabien Chouteau. >> >> If this is based on code by Fabien, shouldn't it carry his Signed-off-by >> before yours? > > Need to check how similar our versions actually are, if I can reuse his > signed-off or if I changed it (in that case it's not appropriate to keep > the original signed-off - according to my understanding).
If there's still some of Fabien's code in there then as I understand it the usual approach is to retain his authorship and Signed-off-by:, and then follow that with "[you: summary of your changes]" and then your signed-off-by. See for instance commit f19e00d77 where I did a fair amount of rework on a patch originally submitted by Alex. If you have significantly or totally rewritten the code then you can give the patch your own author and signed-off-by, and acknowledge that somebody else found the problem or suggested the general approach for a fix with a Reported-by: or Suggested-by: tag. Where exactly the line between the two lies is a judgement call. This is really about making sure we give credit where due (and conversely that we don't silently attribute later changes to an original author who might not agree with them). (The legal audit trail aspect is satisfied even without the original author's signoff provided that original work was under a suitable license; this is for instance how signoffs work for big chunks of other-project code we import like the binutils disassemblers, libvixl, etc.) thanks -- PMM
