[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC qemu 0/6] mirror: implement incremental and bitmap modes
From: |
Max Reitz |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC qemu 0/6] mirror: implement incremental and bitmap modes |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Sep 2020 14:57:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 |
On 03.09.20 14:38, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 03.09.2020 um 13:04 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> On 03.09.20 12:13, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
>>> On August 21, 2020 3:03 pm, Max Reitz wrote:
>>>> On 18.02.20 11:07, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
>>> I am not sure how
>>> the S-O-B by John is supposed to enter the mix - should I just include
>>> it in the squashed patch (which would be partly authored, but
>>> not-yet-signed-off by him otherwise?)?
>>
>> I’m not too sure on the proceedings, actually. I think it should be
>> fine if you put his S-o-b there, as long as your patch is somehow based
>> on a patch that he sent earlier with his S-o-b underneath. But I’m not
>> sure.
>
> Signed-off-by means that John certifies the DCO for the patch (at least
> the original version that you possibly modified), so you cannot just add
> it without asking him.
But what if you take a patch from someone and heavily modify it –
wouldn’t you keep the original S-o-b and explain the modifications in
the commit message?
Max
> John should reply with a Signed-off-by line to the patch in question.
> Then you (Fabian) can add it in the next version of the series (if I
> understand correctly, you're going to respin anyway).
>
> I see that patch 2 doesn't have any S-o-b at all. It should have both
> John's and Fabian's.
>
> Kevin
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature