Hi Bruce, > -----Original Message----- > From: Richardson, Bruce > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 5:47 PM > To: Ouyang, Changchun > Cc: Thomas Monjalon; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio implementation > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 06:40:23AM +0000, Ouyang, Changchun wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 2:12 PM > > > To: Ouyang, Changchun > > > Cc: Qiu, Michael; Stephen Hemminger; dev at dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio > > > implementation > > > > > > 2014-12-09 05:41, Ouyang, Changchun: > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Qiu, Michael > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 11:23 AM > > > > > To: Ouyang, Changchun; Thomas Monjalon; Stephen Hemminger > > > > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio > > > > > implementation > > > > > > > > > > On 12/9/2014 9:11 AM, Ouyang, Changchun wrote: > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > > > >> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 5:31 PM > > > > > >> To: Ouyang, Changchun > > > > > >> Cc: dev at dpdk.org > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio > > > > > >> implementation > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi Changchun, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 2014-12-08 14:21, Ouyang Changchun: > > > > > >>> This patch set bases on two original RFC patch sets from > > > > > >>> Stephen > > > > > >> Hemminger[stephen at networkplumber.org] > > > > > >>> Refer to > > > > > >>> [http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-August/004845.html ] > > > > > >>> for > > > > > >> the original one. > > > > > >>> This patch set also resolves some conflict with latest codes > > > > > >>> and removed > > > > > >> duplicated codes. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> As you sent the patches, you appear as the author. > > > > > >> But I guess Stephen should be the author for some of them. > > > > > >> Please check who has contributed the most in each patch to > decide. > > > > > > You are right, most of patches originate from Stephen's > > > > > > patchset, except for the last one, To be honest, I am ok > > > > > > whoever is the author of this patch set, :-), We could co-own > > > > > > the feature of Single virtio if you all agree with it, and I > > > > > > think we couldn't finish Such a feature without collaboration > > > > > > among us, this is why I tried to communicate > > > > > with most of you to collect more feedback, suggestion and > > > > > comments for this feature. > > > > > > Very appreciate for all kinds of feedback, suggestion here, > > > > > > especially for > > > > > patch set from Stephen. > > > > > > > > > > > > According to your request, how could we make this patch set > > > > > > looks more > > > > > like Stephen as the author? > > > > > > Currently I add Stephen as Signed-off-by list in each patch(I > > > > > > got the > > > > > agreement from Stephen before doing this :-)). > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ouyang, > > > > > > > > > > "Signed-off-by" should be added by himself, because the one who > > > > > in the Signed-off-by list should take responsibility for it(like > > > > > potential > > > bugs/issues). > > > > > > > > > > Although, lots of patches are originate from Stephen, we still > > > > > need himself add this line :) > > > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > It that right? I can't add Stephen into Signed-off-by list even if > > > > I have gotten the agreement from Stephen, What 's the strict rule here? > > > > > > Stephen sent the patches with his Signed-off, then you added yours. > > > This is OK. > > > Using git am, author would have been Stephen. To change author now, > > > you can edit each commit with interactive rebase and "git commit > > > --amend -- author=Stephen". > > > No need to resend now. Please check it for next version of the patchset. > > > > > > > So I understand correctly, Stephen need care for from patches from 1 > > to 16, I need care for the 17th patch from next version. > > What I mean "caring for" above is: debug and validate them and send > > out patches > > > > Thanks > > Changchun > > > Just to clarify Thomas point here about use of "git am". If you get a patch > from someone to test or work on, use "git am" to apply it, rather than "git > apply", since "git am" generates a commit in your local repo and thereby > maintains the original authorship of the patch. If you do "git apply" and > subsequently commit yourself, you - rather than the original author - will > appear as the "author" of the patch, and you need to amend the commit as > Thomas suggests to fix this. > > So in short: > * git am == good > * git apply == bad
Thanks very much for the clarification. I will use git am for next version. Changchun
