On September 3, 2020 3:23 pm, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 03.09.2020 um 14:57 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: >> On 03.09.20 14:38, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> > Am 03.09.2020 um 13:04 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: >> >> On 03.09.20 12:13, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: >> >>> On August 21, 2020 3:03 pm, Max Reitz wrote: >> >>>> On 18.02.20 11:07, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: >> >>> I am not sure how >> >>> the S-O-B by John is supposed to enter the mix - should I just include >> >>> it in the squashed patch (which would be partly authored, but >> >>> not-yet-signed-off by him otherwise?)? >> >> >> >> I’m not too sure on the proceedings, actually. I think it should be >> >> fine if you put his S-o-b there, as long as your patch is somehow based >> >> on a patch that he sent earlier with his S-o-b underneath. But I’m not >> >> sure. >> > >> > Signed-off-by means that John certifies the DCO for the patch (at least >> > the original version that you possibly modified), so you cannot just add >> > it without asking him. >> >> But what if you take a patch from someone and heavily modify it – >> wouldn’t you keep the original S-o-b and explain the modifications in >> the commit message? > > Ah, if that patch already had a S-o-b, then yes. You keep it not only to > show who touched the patch, but also because your own S-o-b depends on > the one from the original author (you only have the rights to contribute > it because the original author had them and could pass them on to you). > > I thought it was based on a patch that came without S-o-b.
it is (taken from John's git, with his approval, and implicit admission that S-O-B is just missing because it was a WIP branch/tree that I started from). that was also the reason why I kept that patch unmodified and sent my modifications as patches on-top, to make it easier for John to verify that that one patch is his original WIP one and add this missing S-O-B ;)
