Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-platforms][PATCH v2 1/7] Platform/RPi: Add missing model name

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>]

On 11/19/19 1:14 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> On 11/19/19 12:38 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
>>> From: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <samer.el-haj-mahmoud@arm.com>
>>>
>>> Add a missing entry for the "Raspberry Pi Compute Module 3+" in
>>> RpiFirmwareGetModelName ().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
>>
>> I feel really lost with how the S-o-b are handled.
> 
> Signed-off-by, as per https://developercertificate.org/, starts off
> with "By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:".
> 
> That is only a valid statement at the point of contributing code to a
> project. It is also only a valid statement when given by the person
> contributing it. Samer has authored this code, but he has not
> contributed it.
> 
> My own litmus test is the legal usefulness of the statament
> "Samer said he signed the contract.".

I just asked clarification on another thread and now see this reply.

Now I understand that while being the author, Samer did not contributed 
his code to the project. Then by forwarding his work, Pete is a 
contributor signing the certificate. If Samer did not sign the 
certificate in front of the project (by posting his work), then Pete can 
not sign on his behalf. Phew.

>> I'd have expected, Samer as the author, signs it. Pete forwards it, then
>> Leif refactors a bit by extracting a part of the previous bigger patch.
>> So:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <samer.el-haj-mahmoud@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Pete Batard <pete@akeo.ie>
>> Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> 
> What might be confusing you is where a set is collaboratively
> developed, or where multiple patch sets are smashed together to be
> merged atomically; when someone other than the poster has previously
> contributed a given patch to the project but it is being *reposted* by
> someone else to the same project, it is customary to include the
> original Signed-off-by, since it still applies.

Correct.

> Similarly, when non-trivial changes are made by a maintainer (or
> whoever reposted the patches), the maintainer *should* add their own
> S-o-b - something that is usually done after a line briefly explaining
> [which changes were done]

Yes, agreed.

> .
> 
> (You will however find that different maintainers have different
> opinion of what constitutes "trivial".)

Thanks for the clear explanation!

Phil.