From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: None (no SPF record) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c06::235; helo=mail-io0-x235.google.com; envelope-from=mw@semihalf.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-io0-x235.google.com (mail-io0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::235]) (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 3B91B21E1B776 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 97so1287248iok.7 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:43:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=semihalf-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=J9xekMZLfIt3nxCS6rCqTCF9odLQKEJGYbXd18W/4fU=; b=DFYa6OAo9qXr6NkFbZJq/dj/QJ1Cbrrij+E/H9nQRnMUV/3bEbBcdU5midinB2AFa+ QAwldwICt2hGe2IjQTLFpOJ3DHFj196Dx5wWmzt8MI7OpGxjyUiszHqCrfK5c6pESUN9 3BqVS9HPehCS9YizU6Hby3D2ShDWwX/OikinjBrQ/NU+vAm7wFxV+DbebzeriNSySKv1 w/c+5nD+V3OINcVaXE7QcgtypP+AsnuXwsu6ApDUbEwddFKIcg3mwY3X26bvWE06bxlQ MMCHbuDz1UGJ+VHgZctJHpbSVYXUqfwf6FNyl1qCcCifzudB6ToXbpizpWs3vJQSBAT9 UjPQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J9xekMZLfIt3nxCS6rCqTCF9odLQKEJGYbXd18W/4fU=; b=J/kZ3PhhlX7GJ1PmdC8xTIDFtFXZfuj5cjKA6/NCpfDcc4JUE2dM/TV27p4N9ZZOqr TSJ6F1JlVyCEQQn/ONhmQpeEDB1lj2IFJtLkvXKeaGPWlI3dffMZMao9FCpTuphXVIh0 ZqOVLGlQm8ardD0WhueVopGIQozp23/PybH4jmDMOtBJ9xDLYVXk8jdklzghPiKFFCqv oSgZ8HOkzvWSepxvz/4Wpv5tbN9P8HPLHuWhCmFZG83YTruk5euv7Tf47eFAYo7XrHkh M2mLgCdkYwv5fxtLFIo7zMFsxcZbNf1qJIbmr7a7Fa44drNaBReQvJZBNqyVZvahLRSI BS2g== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXtO8LW7H1MuJLfAqbNue1Z+DdBzlfQCNDY6y566CNzhp537lJu 7CKcNnaFqexVdOXRe4qL3A4AGp3+3sXiQERB1imLlw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBK7G1w/C3oIUhZYHqpOPG/3OyTZg5F28CBxUjc3u/Y68EIqQCcyDM0QpLFVDOkG/ppxxapSzNw0Fj9UFoN5mo= X-Received: by 10.107.27.141 with SMTP id b135mr20432967iob.262.1507711394575; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:43:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.157.141 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:43:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <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> <20171011083213.jovjkbjbof37hydr@bivouac.eciton.net> From: Marcin Wojtas Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:43:14 +0200 Message-ID: To: Leif Lindholm Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , edk2-devel-01 , Nadav Haklai , Neta Zur Hershkovits , Kostya Porotchkin , Hua Jing , semihalf-dabros-jan 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 08:39:46 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Leif, 2017-10-11 10:32 GMT+02:00 Leif Lindholm : > 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. > 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 :) Best regards, Marcin