Re: [PATCH v4] x86, olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Mon Mar 26 2012 - 19:05:39 EST
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:47:08 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/26/2012 03:45 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Andrew Morton
> > <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> s/fix/break/? "Originally-from" is not a recognised tag. If this code
> >> is based upon an earlier version from Paul then Signed-off-by: is
> >> correct.
> >> What's going on here? What are you trying to communicate?
> > I'm trying to take Ingo's suggestion, in the thread "[patch 1/8] x86,
> > olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands" he wrote:
> > ====
> > This is not a valid signoff sequence - the 'From: ' author of
> > the patch must be the first SOB line.
> > The way to do this is either to have a:
> > From: Paul Fox <pgf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > or to covert Paul Fox's SOB to a credit line, such as:
> > Originally-from: Paul Fox <pgf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ====
> > The original code was from Paul Fox. I changed it somewhat
> > significantly, and Paul approves of the end result.
> > Can someone suggest a way of expressing this, including tag ordering,
> > that will be accepted by all parties? :)
> My recommendation is:
> Originally-by: Paul Fox <pgf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ... followed by Signed-off-by: in the order of patch flow. Approving a
> patch, when not passing through, is indicated by Acked-by: or Reviewed-by:
I'd be OK with that, but first we should define what "Originally-by:"
means! I'd want it to mean that a) Paul was the original author and b)
Paul approves the recording of Daniel as the primary author.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/