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:c0c::22c; helo=mail-wr0-x22c.google.com; envelope-from=leif.lindholm@linaro.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-wr0-x22c.google.com (mail-wr0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22c]) (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 9F96821EA15B1 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id k7so733182wre.2 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:14:16 -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=4bR5VdSHjkMoLkCoIGJFUQGppnkyX0oNm0Cs8xpsabs=; b=a80mArK68P8jj1t1gfNBIrfUmUhjuWVLV+vpzgOMAKAJH7hGJYARb8791aZXh3BRsB CWqRpgJ8sotOSTLBFxFzVskl8BradiRziH3q497usEYqvJHxGtgaJEPhzFLtzD1AdBc5 oT1b+ci3iQdZDQ4L6614rK0DvgXG0OZQjQrBo= 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=4bR5VdSHjkMoLkCoIGJFUQGppnkyX0oNm0Cs8xpsabs=; b=pnujUuh1ym0YvpCk/rgjz9gnjBaZNkkzbXkucW/eIS9oLI7jdiAioKx958U6LfLqy/ y/IZcc/cFVMJh00vY1DX2Z/iEHa4QM1GlY+LZutPJQZ3eBPuf4i2ywzJBa4cHg1IrOZk nrDEEDEwRB6buqR85HZPvULkuPf6aWMV6mZNHTaMuAQKqmF8PKTUEq1pfFsZNMRBXLt7 tA3P1DOrDxVZWsaPsYDU+OBAdEcwDeIVO8vfC4UjfcnxB4gfhiFiVYv29vJfrv6VpJrF ihUs5EQVlVzmOcd9dbODNrum7EzTGvMgzDBfp/Yg7P83xAshBOCAZ5rR/P3WLaRXK7x1 IDsQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUzHah313XdwIiANWY2D9ppOFL2k4geRMhtTG8O71NWgdsty4xM YV1kLuQmO34SI3W4wK5C3RSSKg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBeudl4mAnGz2aqeB4H2cCNuxOGmVRfetkkRCcrenB8c2xytZ1vFaO9rMo3WzFpiZHI2wneGQ== X-Received: by 10.223.199.69 with SMTP id b5mr14601600wrh.270.1507713255288; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:14:15 -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 q5sm2140895wrc.30.2017.10.11.02.14.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:14:12 +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: <20171011091412.npulycipmw6oftqv@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <1507568462-28775-2-git-send-email-mw@semihalf.com> <20171010143715.w4glyje3pw24kvsm@bivouac.eciton.net> <20171010150327.43zpe5x6gjo4umrx@bivouac.eciton.net> <20171010152649.oau3kjesmjtogb4w@bivouac.eciton.net> <20171011083213.jovjkbjbof37hydr@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 09:10:48 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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. / Leif