On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:53:05AM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote:
> >> I think Contibuted-under: still needs to come first.
> >>
> >> I don't think we have an explicit policy for how to deal with
> >> multi-contributor patches. The ones we do see tend to just keep a
> >> single commit message and list the contributors.
> >>
> >> In Linux. it would be something like
> >> Signed-off-by: Marcin Wojtas <m...@semihalf.com>
> >> [Introduce protocol GUID to force correct driver dispatch order]
> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Marcin Wojtas <m...@semihalf.com>
> >>
> >> I would be quite happy to use the same format here.
> >>
> >
> > Well, Tianocore still conflates authorship with a statement regarding
> > the origin of the contribution. I wonder how this is supposed to work
> > when Linaro engineers such as myself contribute code that was authored
> > by engineers working in member companies, e.g., Socionext. The license
> > and the contract that company has with Linaro give me the right to
> > contribute that code, but that does not make me the author, and I
> > cannot add a Signed-off-by that wasn't present when we received the
> > code (even if I knew the name of the author)
>
> I think it's fairly easy thing, needlessly twisted... How does above
> reflect the requirement to add contributor sign-off to someone else's
> patch (with his authorship and original sign-off - should they be
> removed?)?
Well, we're not debating this because it's critical for this one
patch, but because it would be useful to have a precedent.
> Anyway, let's make a quick decision here - should I submit patch with
> linux-like signatures and description? Or should I split the patches?
Let's put it this way - if you split the patches, you remove this
series from abovementioned discussion :)
/
Leif
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
