From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753510AbZAKM7g (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:59:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751782AbZAKM72 (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:59:28 -0500 Received: from mail5.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.7]:56661 "EHLO mail5.sea5.speakeasy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751617AbZAKM71 (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:59:27 -0500 Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:58:09 -0800 (PST) From: Trent Piepho X-X-Sender: xyzzy@shell2.speakeasy.net To: Richard Purdie cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , LKML , Guennadi Liakhovetski , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] LED updates for 2.6.29 In-Reply-To: <1231674559.5304.13.camel@dax.rpnet.com> Message-ID: References: <1231500186.5317.9.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <1231543199.5317.63.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <1231633983.5330.32.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <1231674559.5304.13.camel@dax.rpnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 21:43 -0800, Trent Piepho wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 04:31 -0800, Trent Piepho wrote: > > > > The LED tree makes more sense for what's left I think. There was a > > > > openfirmware gpio patch, but that's already gone in. What's left only > > > > touches led files and the device tree binding docs. > > > > > > > > AFAIK, there were no objections to the patches left. > > > > > > Ok, these are now queued in the LED tree: > > > > > > http://git.o-hand.com/cgit.cgi/linux-rpurdie-leds/log/ > > > > > > I did merge the last three patches in one and make some changes to deal > > > with some other outstanding issues. Let me know ASAP if there are any > > > problems. > > > > Since the last patch looks like it's just my three patches folded into one, > > shouldn't I be listed as the author and the primary signed off by? > > I made changes other than just merging the three together (the > syspend/resume change and the bitfield parts in leds.h) so putting you > as signed off by/authorship would not have been "correct" and I credited > you in the commit message instead. I wanted to get the missing patches > queued ASAP so I went with the way that does fit in the rules as you'd > not have been happy if a modified patch was attributed to you. I'll put > you as author and a signoff if you confirm thats acceptable. It doesn't seem right to merge someone's patches together, make a very small change, and then no longer credit them as the author. Seems like it defeats the purpose of the SOB lines for tracing the train of custody too. If someone looks to see where the code came from, it will look like you wrote it. Maybe Freescale will say Intel stole our code? Without the SOB, what record is there in git that Freescale gave permission to put the code in the kernel? I also put some significant effort into writing informative commit messages, which have been lost. Along with Grant's acks for my patches. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail5.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail5.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.speakeasy.net", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7691DDF7D for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:59:32 +1100 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:58:09 -0800 (PST) From: Trent Piepho To: Richard Purdie Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] LED updates for 2.6.29 In-Reply-To: <1231674559.5304.13.camel@dax.rpnet.com> Message-ID: References: <1231500186.5317.9.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <1231543199.5317.63.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <1231633983.5330.32.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <1231674559.5304.13.camel@dax.rpnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Andrew Morton , Guennadi Liakhovetski , Linus Torvalds , LKML List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 21:43 -0800, Trent Piepho wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 04:31 -0800, Trent Piepho wrote: > > > > The LED tree makes more sense for what's left I think. There was a > > > > openfirmware gpio patch, but that's already gone in. What's left only > > > > touches led files and the device tree binding docs. > > > > > > > > AFAIK, there were no objections to the patches left. > > > > > > Ok, these are now queued in the LED tree: > > > > > > http://git.o-hand.com/cgit.cgi/linux-rpurdie-leds/log/ > > > > > > I did merge the last three patches in one and make some changes to deal > > > with some other outstanding issues. Let me know ASAP if there are any > > > problems. > > > > Since the last patch looks like it's just my three patches folded into one, > > shouldn't I be listed as the author and the primary signed off by? > > I made changes other than just merging the three together (the > syspend/resume change and the bitfield parts in leds.h) so putting you > as signed off by/authorship would not have been "correct" and I credited > you in the commit message instead. I wanted to get the missing patches > queued ASAP so I went with the way that does fit in the rules as you'd > not have been happy if a modified patch was attributed to you. I'll put > you as author and a signoff if you confirm thats acceptable. It doesn't seem right to merge someone's patches together, make a very small change, and then no longer credit them as the author. Seems like it defeats the purpose of the SOB lines for tracing the train of custody too. If someone looks to see where the code came from, it will look like you wrote it. Maybe Freescale will say Intel stole our code? Without the SOB, what record is there in git that Freescale gave permission to put the code in the kernel? I also put some significant effort into writing informative commit messages, which have been lost. Along with Grant's acks for my patches.