On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:44:36PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:38:47PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 19:13 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be increased
> > > > if you could prepare a patch...
> > Applied to upstream-fixes branch of libertas-2.6 which is destined for
> > 2.6.22; I hope you don't mind that I just added the Signed-off-by for
> > you.
> Adding a signed off line for a patch that purely removes codes seems
> rather pointless to me, but feel free to add it if you care.
THe Signed-off-by: document the path a given patch have taken on its way
to the final acceptance and does not have any significance whatsoever
about the content of the patch. Anyone on the Signed-of-by route
may change the patch (and I often do so) without further notice.
So judging if a Signed-off-by: should be added or not based on
patch content is wrong. It is a patch anyway.
That said the legal(in a loose definition of legal) rationale may
be of much less significance when trivially removing some code.
But we use the same mechanish even to cover spelling corrections.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]