On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 13:02 -0700, York Sun wrote: > > On 03/19/2015 12:58 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 12:54 -0700, York Sun wrote: > >> > >> On 03/19/2015 12:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 18:14 +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:45:48PM +0000, York Sun wrote: > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> > >>> > >>> York, where's your signoff since you're the one submitting the patch? > >> > >> I am sending many patches in this set. Since I didn't contribute to this > >> patch, > >> I didn't add my signed-off-by. > > > > That's not what signed-off-by means. I realize (though never understood > > why) the U-Boot project differs from Linux rules in terms of whether > > custodians are expected to sign off patches when applying, but does that > > extend to submitting patches by e-mail as well? > > > > I don't have the answer myself. I haven't added any of my signed-off-by for > the > patches I squashed/tested/sent. For small patch set, I would request the > original author to send each patch. For large set with dependency, I send > patch > on behalf of the authors. I don't want to take credit for the patch I didn't > contribute the change. I test all of them though.
The From: line is for giving credit. Signed-off-by shows the path the patch took. Plus, leaving your name off puts all the blame on the author, when they weren't the ones who decided the patch was ready to submit. :-) -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
