Hi Sam, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 09:42:41PM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> >>>>>> Is this an Acked-by? >>>>> I already added my sob line above. >>>> To my understanding of Documentation/SubmittingPatches you add your >>>> S-o-b if you submit my patch upstream. Documenting that it went though >>>> your hands. If I submit the patch upstream and you said, that patch is >>>> okay you add your Acked-by: >>>> >>>> Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that >>>> maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch. >>> As a subsystem maintainer I add my signed-off-by, just like David Miller >>> adds his sob thereafter, and so on. But as I'm not maintaining my own >>> tree and forwarding patches that might not be 100% correct. I put Sam on >>> CC. He might be able to clarify the situation. >> IMHO it's quite simple: >> >> If the patch goes though your hand -> add your S-o-b >> If I send the patch upstream and you are happy with the patch, you give >> your Acked-by, I add it to the patch and send it upstream. > > Correct! > > You will see a lot of people that get this worng on lkml and also on netdev > (at least wHen I lurked there last). > > s-o-b document the path of the patch for the people > that actually _may_ modify the patch. > [_may_ does NOT imply that they do so] > > But if Marc decides to put his patches in a git tree > that you pull then you will _not_ have your s-o-b added which is > correct as you do not have the possibility to modify the patch. > > But for now I see CAN maintained only on a old-style patch basis > which is fine so you need not worry about this detail.
Thanks for clarification. I will switch to "Acked-by", no problem. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
