2017-10-11 11:14 GMT+02:00 Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org>: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:43:14AM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> I'm totally fine with precedences, it's rather your call, whether it's >> accepted or not :) My three arugments are: >> - I have still a lot patches ahead and it's very likely such situation >> may occur again. >> - Needless to say, it may happen again in the development of other platforms. >> - Artificially splitting patches seems to me as not really needed and >> I'm not convinced to its justification. >> >> >> 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 :) >> >> If you're ok with it, I'd go with single patch, but I can do it either >> way - I think I'm not to decide, what's best from maintainers' point >> of view :) > > For now, I would take the single patch with Linux-style description, > like the example I sent earlier. >
Great, will send it in v2. Thanks, Marcin _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
