>On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:04:05 +0000 >"Kavanagh, Mark B" <mark.b.kavan...@intel.com> wrote: > >> > >> >>On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:32:32 +0000 >> >>"Kavanagh, Mark B" <mark.b.kavan...@intel.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >On 04/23/2015 11:58 PM, Kavanagh, Mark B wrote: >> >>> >> Hi all, >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Just a quick poll: are the resolutions to review comments in >> >>> >> this patch acceptable to >> >>> >everyone? >> >>> >> >> >>> >> If I've missed anything, or are there any additional opens that >> >>> >> need to be addressed >> >>> >before it can be merged, just let me know. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Thanks in advance, >> >>> >> Mark >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Update relevant artifacts to add support for DPDK v2.0.0 >> >>> >>> - INSTALL.DPDK.md >> >>> >>> - travis build script >> >>> >>> - acinclude.m4: add 'mssse3' flag to OVS_CFLAGS >> >>> >>> - netdev-dpdk: fix build with unified offload types in DPDK >> >>> >>> v2.0.0 >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Note that this breaks compatibility with DPDK v1.8.0 >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> v1: - update DPDK version & build instructions in >> >>> >>> INSTALL.DPDK.md >> >>> >>> - update DPDK version and remove compile flags in >> >>> >>> travis/build.sh >> >>> >>> - fix build with unified offload types in DPDK v2.0.0 >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> v2: - add mssse3 flag to OVS_CFLAGS in acinclude.m4 >> >>> >>> - reinstate '-Wno-cast-align' compile flag for clang >> >>> >>> - add details of vhost user support limitations to >> >>> >>> INSTALL.DPDK.md >> >>> >>> - refactor travis/build.sh to reflect these changes >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> v3: -correct minor typos in commit message >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mark Kavanagh <mark.b.kavan...@intel.com> >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Panu Matilainen <pmati...@redhat.com> >> >>> > >> >>> >It feels a bit strange to have signed off something I hadn't seen >> >>> >before this (unless it refers to the actual code change) but >> >>> >maybe I'm just unfamiliar with the signed-off protocol. >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> Hey Panu, >> >>> >> >>> I included you in the 'signed-off-by' field, due to your earlier >> >>> contribution re fixing the build with DPDK 2.0 unified rss hash >> >>> types >> >>> (http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2015-March/052022.html). >> >>> >> >>> Contributing.md states 'If the patch has more than one author, all >> >>> must sign off'; however, maybe in this case it would have been >> >>> best to allow you to review the patch first, and then you could >> >>> have signed off when satisfied with the patch in its entirety. >> >>> Given that you had previously contributed a subset of the content >> >>> (which, incidentally I had -1'd at the time), I felt it prudent >> >>> to include you in the tag, rather than leave it open to >> >>> misinterpretation regarding the origin of the code. >> >>> >> >>> Any clarification the maintainers could provide on this matter >> >>> would be greatly appreciated for future reference. >> >> >> >>I am not the maintainer but I can tell that you can carry on >> >>signatures of all the authors of the original work with their >> >>consent, of course. >> >> >> > >> >Hi Fabio, >> >> Apologies for the typo here Flavio. >> >> > >> >Thanks for your feedback. The point you've made here really is the >> >crux of the issue in question: whether to include another's name in >> >a signoff tag, without their consent, or not. Using this patch as an >> >example: Panu previously proposed changes which were rejected at the >> >time, but were later integrated into a patch that I submitted. In >> >order for him to receive credit for his contributions, I added him >> >to the patch's signoff. However, this could potentially carry the >> >connotation that he had approved/signed off on the entire patch; >> >conversely, if I had omitted his name, it could potentially be >> >perceived that I had attempted to pass his code as my own. So, what >> >to do? >> > >> >The Linux kernel submission guidelines >> >(https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches) specify >> >the following procedure, which, while slightly different from this >> >scenario, are IMO equally applicable: >> > >> > If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you >> > need to slightly modify patches you receive in order to >> > merge them, because the code is not exactly the same in your >> > tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to rule (c), >> > you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a >> > totally counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule >> > (b) allows you to adjust >> >=> the code, but then it is very impolite to change one >> >submitter's code and => make him endorse your bugs. To solve >> >this problem, it is recommended that => you add a line >> >between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating >> > the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory >> > about this, it seems like prepending the description with >> > your mail and/or name, all enclosed in square brackets, is >> > noticeable enough to make it obvious that you are >> > responsible for last-minute changes. Example : >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Random J Developer >> > <ran...@developer.example.org> >> > [lu...@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c >> > to foo.h] Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer >> > <lu...@maintainer.example.org> >> > >> >Is this approach amenable? If so, I can upload a patch for >> >CONTRIBUTING.md > >In this case you're not the maintainer. The above is valid when the >one merging the patch finds something that needs to be changed because >the current tree has changed since posting and merging. So, the >maintainer does the small changes needed and adds that small text part >to indicate his actions. >
Sure, I understand - I was merely proposing that a similar process could be used in a situation where one author's patch uses another's previously-submitted code. >In our case, there are two contributors exchanging ideas about the >patch, so just post the patch with CC to Panu and to be polite tell >that he is free to signed off due to his contributions after the '--'. >The maintainers should give enough time for the CC'ed folks to review >and reply with their signed off or any other tag or no tag as they >feel appropriated. > >When in doubt, ask the person. Yes, this sounds like the way to go - thanks for your feedback Flavio. > >fbl > >_______________________________________________ >dev mailing list >dev@openvswitch.org >http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev