On 03/19/2015 01:06 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > 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. :-) >
When multiple patches are squashed, I put authors' name in signed-off-by. For this reason, I think adding my signoff will be confusing. But I agree with you that I should have my name somewhere for the patches I sent. Doesn't the email "from" qualify? York _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
