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.
Sam
-
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]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
