Re: [PATCH v3 00/56] Convert parts of refs.c to struct object_id
- From
brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
- Date
- May 27, 2015, 00:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20150527000436.GA4342@vauxhall.crustytoothpaste.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAGZ79kbxrPhcMUFx3OY1s_qk4TkUcBgscDwqSvrLtDXmF1YwWw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:37:29AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
Show 26 quoted lines
> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:40 PM, brian m. carlson > <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote: > > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:34:59PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> [PATCH 01/56] was authored by you but has Michael's sign-off, which > >> looked somewhat odd to me, though. > > > > Yes, it does. He picked it up from me, and signed off, and I took his > > branch. I don't believe he changed it, but I didn't check for certain. > > So technically, although I wrote it, I also received it from him without > > changing it, so both (a) and (c) of the DCO apply. > > At least in the kernel, the sign offs are also used to track a patchs way > of life, so essentially whenever somebody touches that patch (either as > an author, or as a patch shoveling sub Lieutenant), you'd add a sign off. > > So if we were to handle the sign offs just as the kernel people, I would > have assumed a sign-off block like > > Sign-off: you > Sign off: Michael > Sign-off: you > > as that would indicate that Michael did not author it from scratch but > based his work on yours. That's just my understanding of the sign off > process for linux and I guessed we'd follow a very similar process. But > no objections from me regarding the signing.
If Junio would like to add my sign-off to the end, he's welcome to do so:
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
-- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187