On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 aFt 11:03:55PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Jason Hui <jason....@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi, Grant, > > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Grant Likely <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca> > > wrote: > >> Hi Jason, > >> > >> Minor comments below. > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:59:41PM +0800, Jason Liu wrote: > >>> Signed-off-by: Jason Liu <jason....@linaro.org> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jason Liu <r64...@freescale.com> > >> > >> This looks wrong. You should only have one s-o-b line. Use one email > >> addr or the other. Not both. > > > > I just take the same approach as this link: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/12/17/363 > > If you think it's not applicable, I can change it. > > Yeah, I don't think that's right. A s-o-b is a personal assertion > that the patch is to the best of your knowledge that you have the > right to submit it for inclusion in the kernel (see section 12 of > Documentation/SubmittingPatches). It doesn't make any statements > about who owns the copyright on the patch or other issues of corporate > ownership. Companies may have policies about which email address > employees use when signing off, but that isn't what the s-o-b protocol > is for. > > Since there isn't more than one of you, you should only have one s-o-b > line. :-) > > Paul, since your email was presented as evidence, would you care to > offer a counter-argument? :-)
How about https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/22/668? ;-) There is only one of me, but I am acting in two roles. Thanx, Paul _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
