Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] e1000: allow command-line selection of card model

[Andreas Färber]

Am 21.05.2014 11:25, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:12:42AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 21.05.2014 11:04, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:40:54AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Am 20.05.2014 17:05, schrieb Gabriel L. Somlo:
>>>>> Allow selection of different card models from the qemu
>>>>> command line, to better accomodate a wider range of guests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based-on-patch-by: Romain Dolbeau <address@hidden>
>>>>
>>>> If that patch carried a Signed-off-by line, you should retain it.
>>>
>>> Actually I think that would be confusing. Romain didn't sign off
>>> on *this* patch, he signed off on a previous one.
>>> A signature by Gabriel indicates Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
>>> which has an option to incorporate other's work - it
>>> does not seem to require signatures by these others.
>>
>> With the same argument you could drop anyone's Sob you get as a
>> maintainer.
> 
> I could but it would not be nice to submitters, and it drops useful info
> (author's Sob).  So if someone thinks there's problematic code here and
> comes complaining, we want to be able to say "this code came from XYZ".
> 
> 
>> But the purpose of Sob is to track through whose hands a
>> patch went, not just who last touched it.
> 
> Went untouched or mostly untouched.
> Did you bother checking?
> I looked and Romain's patch isn't very similar to this one.
> 
>> My point here was that Based-on-patch-by is very unusual.
> 
> What's the harm?
> Gabriel's just being nice and crediting other's work.
> 
>> The alternative would be to leave the original From: Romain Dolbeau, his
>> Sob, then a [gsomlo: Dropped this, added that] followed by Sob.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andreas
> 
> That's just asking submitter to do a lot of extra work,
> I don't see why would we place roadblocks in submitter's paths
> like this. Linux certainly does not and we didn't ask for this
> in the past.
> 
> Further, the patch author in git will also be the original author then
> which is only fair if the patch is changed in very minor ways.
> In which case keeping the original Sob around *would* be right.

Either the patch is based on the patch the submitter claims it is based
on, or it is not based on that patch.

If it is, then the Sob should be retained because not doing so is
dropping useful information as you put it. You will find both ways, From
new and old+new Sob or From original and [], in git history, depending
on how much changed (which I have not checked here).

If it is not based on Romain's patch, then Suggested-by would be much
more to the point - and something the maintainer (Stefan) could easily
edit when signing off, if there were nothing else to change.

Andreas

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg