On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 09:42:41PM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>
> >>>> Is this an Acked-by?
> >>> I already added my sob line above.
> >> To my understanding of Documentation/SubmittingPatches you add your
> >> S-o-b if you submit my patch upstream. Documenting that it went though
> >> your hands. If I submit the patch upstream and you said, that patch is
> >> okay you add your Acked-by:
> >>
> >> Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
> >> maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
> >
> > As a subsystem maintainer I add my signed-off-by, just like David Miller
> > adds his sob thereafter, and so on. But as I'm not maintaining my own
> > tree and forwarding patches that might not be 100% correct. I put Sam on
> > CC. He might be able to clarify the situation.
>
> IMHO it's quite simple:
>
> If the patch goes though your hand -> add your S-o-b
> If I send the patch upstream and you are happy with the patch, you give
> your Acked-by, I add it to the patch and send it upstream.
Correct!
You will see a lot of people that get this worng on lkml and also on netdev
(at least wHen I lurked there last).
s-o-b document the path of the patch for the people
that actually _may_ modify the patch.
[_may_ does NOT imply that they do so]
But if Marc decides to put his patches in a git tree
that you pull then you will _not_ have your s-o-b added which is
correct as you do not have the possibility to modify the patch.
But for now I see CAN maintained only on a old-style patch basis
which is fine so you need not worry about this detail.
Sam
_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
