From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c09::236; helo=mail-wm0-x236.google.com; envelope-from=leif.lindholm@linaro.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BC9921EA15C4 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id m72so2875315wmc.1 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:32:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=zYNDIUIRMzqGEm+8icbGJldE+WH0TmWFMngqtTyl9FM=; b=XC2Bz+uGvted9uag6moTNqXax4b76issw9stdD9QSZ7N7sHZOfTaX5MqTLW8yTkcpc NpbNN72L9Ri7ZTQPtfHYAHxunXRLAnV41jkiK9RD2FE71Cb7NXtWe4EAR26LX08SW5wZ 7+I40yADCeV44JWLN5zTeRDdIeoHlxhv3BG9k= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=zYNDIUIRMzqGEm+8icbGJldE+WH0TmWFMngqtTyl9FM=; b=meyd7cm+6n16rJSDrVGaeHgAnbDoWkxZmxzL9CmF4CKxpNjBNUFyw58Bx4ke35tAyF 5AvMYyXplEQqXSbb1C/cp5yyNxolpDYNMlREYU6TZjCe+YSGvVBhjQ2MPeMiw19hsIIz THiagEbUjqIrFwJ08s8mk3KXEqEOXGXwH6avZ519IHE3j1Bk8goqYnb3IccKH3IL9lfP /5Zbo2zMEQnCleCu/+H11nnnGlgmhujEIeclHyrka7gtEGVFpTDeVxidQuBUt9VgQsrU QIuQ1GxaXp5CoPCPj6IKEKMwBVdPMMhNvM5ukJHK+u9TvZHCCi0ZOWnW2GvlGVuU0ttS CvXg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXqJ2xdgtVFOWsP4Gj0R3vOFKaPszpRHznsmm7JrUdAGLYk/z4a 7nMiS+SX6zF3CSwBisMrxjMC1A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBjX/tOpkcAyENDUbeh43uU2r++xw5KFHrRezgi4D5FV023RB2stezAD6nXdaYCXD+gXF19xA== X-Received: by 10.28.107.17 with SMTP id g17mr14552766wmc.58.1507710735806; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bivouac.eciton.net (bivouac.eciton.net. [2a00:1098:0:86:1000:23:0:2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p38sm16079851wrb.41.2017.10.11.01.32.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:32:13 +0100 From: Leif Lindholm To: Marcin Wojtas Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , edk2-devel-01 , Nadav Haklai , Neta Zur Hershkovits , Kostya Porotchkin , Hua Jing , semihalf-dabros-jan Message-ID: <20171011083213.jovjkbjbof37hydr@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <1507568462-28775-1-git-send-email-mw@semihalf.com> <1507568462-28775-2-git-send-email-mw@semihalf.com> <20171010143715.w4glyje3pw24kvsm@bivouac.eciton.net> <20171010150327.43zpe5x6gjo4umrx@bivouac.eciton.net> <20171010152649.oau3kjesmjtogb4w@bivouac.eciton.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: [platforms: PATCH 01/13] Marvell/Armada: Introduce platform initialization driver X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:28:48 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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 > >> [Introduce protocol GUID to force correct driver dispatch order] > >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel > >> Signed-off-by: Marcin Wojtas > >> > >> 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