[PATCH] Hwmon for Taco
avorontsov at ru.mvista.com
Wed Jan 9 07:13:14 EST 2008
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 01:02:51PM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:30:00 -0500
> Sean MacLennan <smaclennan at pikatech.com> wrote:
> > Ok, here is the ad7414 only. taco-dtm is no more!
> Cool. Couple more things.
> 1) This should go through the hwmon maintainer. Send it to him.
> (CC'ing this list is of course fine.)
> 2) You always need the Signed-off-by: for each patch you send
> 3) If you didn't author the code (this seems to come from Stefan), then
> you need the Signed-off-by from the original author.
Nope. Signed-off-by means completely different thing. It isn't
copyright, it isn't authorship. It's an information (for the history)
whom to bother if code appeared to be either:
b) stolen from the closed source product;
c) patented (where applicable).
There are Copyright (c) and Author: strings in the files for the
credits. If original patch had these strings, then yes, you must
But no one needs author's Signed-off-by, it having zero information
you're hinting about. More than that, there were precedents when
author insisted on removing his Signed-off-by from the modified
patch (when S-o-b used as a permit into someone's tree).
Btw, kernel.org is distributing linux tarballs without changelogs,
thus without Signed-off-by lines. Nobody complains.
Yes, it's common sense and politeness to keep Signed-off-by lines
intact (and the order of these lines), but it's not strict
requirement. "Based on the patch from ..." is the equivalent of
> You're getting there :) These are all "newbie" type mistakes so keep
> plugging away.
email: cbou at mail.ru
backup email: ya-cbou at yandex.ru
More information about the Linuxppc-dev