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::22b; helo=mail-io0-x22b.google.com; envelope-from=mw@semihalf.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (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 D43C221EA15C4 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 97so1357808iok.7 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:16:33 -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=b6O4TpKh7oTJBPJmkYR43cd4W3j/MMTBFc3+8u9uMlQ=; b=gvkNXuqti7WCtYEeU7nKicWo6z17Lyn0SEcHxMPxJFQgrby7cITJkbc+nMBzTY5U98 PSmlaAAIpwyG6GtgnvVQLsiO1yR4PK04FmeGyvK7sXtTKH6TaW/fPwI5KIV3LtvkCMpF ATMLMl062THK98fTjyQlBplt9RlXatp2dGG0jvz7MtREv+juuE5SqnG9Ljl+QF0ke4sB 4R6mTCLHudSQLqg2rtBU2F3qFojusZVmOmE20YuBBA5pXDBxgBZICNUwX2On1ZduAS33 hmwh24fsQYmcm2R+euCAwxWGpFwpfkafLyYSPyVCaJt64grGHV4WbWMfiOdWxXo1gs2W AjwA== 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=b6O4TpKh7oTJBPJmkYR43cd4W3j/MMTBFc3+8u9uMlQ=; b=cZPAElfYti6SwhjXouP8iZdjnJZYXmXKjKtKBPuZSGCITkT8PtC9o6FrauQo/uJgII 7vql+Q83M1YRkndCGk2ni3vpYPR1iUMZhZ52QF+fC8vr+wiL2q61aYDY5LcUvgLDRFdZ K0YmmsQNMxSBHI+aTwDesHMTRC9DtfEf9nPESlbz+TXCxCfCmuJdq6mr8tC0/DTV+KcS rtS9or7NrH8DWlBuBO3GA1zVHewjXFYvNrJMzFiMeiXrrl3VppnY5lXrH4MnKNng7sH6 xBR5fFFju4BOrfXxuIkTx1DwLW9eI6bIikfB0X1AupK5kMHPGafRDZGgRRYr5QHmiU8+ VZPw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWdxUkGgis2sBQLc4FCYCUggyflkWLdJ6htjFxrBsoFoaLp3ziZ YvYlp1M3SpqmqGyu/b6XAOjMjEKeNxnzbzYSy6IMBg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBGELSuMYcY84dtg3b3iqQk6KYnX+RkniE6qoVTQ3b9HeKYNJpWjQebF0O0RUo+hTRwws2dOo0up6Rfud4WDmY= X-Received: by 10.107.56.130 with SMTP id f124mr17779069ioa.33.1507713392363; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:16:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.157.141 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:16:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <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> <20171011091412.npulycipmw6oftqv@bivouac.eciton.net> From: Marcin Wojtas Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:16:31 +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 09:13:04 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 2017-10-11 11:14 GMT+02:00 Leif Lindholm : > 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. > Great, will send it in v2. Thanks, Marcin