Message ID | 1f39432b-84e2-e6dc-a6b8-c48ad5cf2210@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | auxdisplay: Add support for the Titanmec TM1628 7 segment display controller | expand |
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:19 PM Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com> wrote: > > v2: > - (re-)add Andreas' SoB to two patches But those were also developed by you too, right? i.e. it should have a Co-developed-by too, otherwise it looks like you only handled the patch: ``` Example of a patch submitted by the From: author:: <changelog> Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org> Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org> Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org> Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org> Signed-off-by: From Author <from@author.example.org> ``` Cheers, Miguel
On 21.02.2022 23:10, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:19 PM Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> v2: >> - (re-)add Andreas' SoB to two patches > > But those were also developed by you too, right? i.e. it should have a > Co-developed-by too, otherwise it looks like you only handled the > patch: > Right, about half of the original code was reworked. Let's see whether and which feedback comes for v2. If a v3 should be needed, I'll follow your suggestion. > ``` > Example of a patch submitted by the From: author:: > > <changelog> > > Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org> > Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org> > Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org> > Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org> > Signed-off-by: From Author <from@author.example.org> > ``` > > Cheers, > Miguel Heiner
On 21.02.22 23:57, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > On 21.02.2022 23:10, Miguel Ojeda wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:19 PM Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> v2: >>> - (re-)add Andreas' SoB to two patches >> >> But those were also developed by you too, right? i.e. it should have a >> Co-developed-by too, otherwise it looks like you only handled the >> patch: >> > > Right, about half of the original code was reworked. Let's see whether and > which feedback comes for v2. If a v3 should be needed, I'll follow your > suggestion. The dispute is that he apparently only looked at my RFC but didn't ask me or check himself for newer code, which there was. Regards, Andreas