This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [Xen-changelog] If the 'cdrom=' option is specified

To: Ewan Mellor <ewan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [Xen-changelog] If the 'cdrom=' option is specified in the definition file but media is
From: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:54:32 -0500
Cc: Ross Maxfield <rmaxfiel@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:56:31 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20060410192930.GA12825@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <E1FT0P3-00015M-0U@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <443AA3F9.50609@xxxxxxxxxx> <20060410192930.GA12825@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060309)
Ewan Mellor wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 01:29:13PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Doesn't this need a Signed-off-by: Ross Maxfield <rmaxfiel@xxxxxxxxxx>?

People have been complaining that a patch should not retain the Signed-off-by
line if the patch has been modified, because they do not sign-off the modified
patch.  If a patch needs minor changes before it can be committed, we can
either bounce it back to the author, which seems unnecessarily heavyweight, or
do what Keir's done here, and sign-off the patch himself.  The From: line
retains the audit trail, credit, and copyright, and it's clear that Keir
himself thinks that this patch is acceptable.

I won't speak for Hollis (although I will CC him :-)) but my understanding is that the appropriate thing to do is check in the patch with the original Signed-off-by and then check in another patch on top of that with the necessary changes (this time, with just Keir's Signed-off-by).

I think the intention is that the original submitter needs to have a Signed-off-by to signify that the origin of the code is kosher (which is something Keir cannot do on his own if the code didn't originate from him). Is this how other people understand it?


Anthony Liguori


Xen-devel mailing list