RE: [Xen-devel] Re: signed-off-by process

To:	"Hollis Blanchard" <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	RE: [Xen-devel] Re: signed-off-by process
From:	"Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:40:28 +0100
Cc:	xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date:	Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:42:10 +0000
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	AcZRt/cL+JZ+BxDvTACPOK8UzY4M2AAByKCA
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] Re: signed-off-by process

> Hi Keir, since you modified Jimi's patch, this is not in 
> keeping with paragraph (c) of the Developer Certificate of 
> Origin 
> (http://www.osdl.org/newsroom/press_releases/2004/2004_05_24_d
> co.html).
> 
> If you don't like a submitted patch as-is, I think the 
> options are either:
> a) ask the original author to resubmit the patch
> b) check in the patch unmodified, then check in your 
> modifications afterwards
> 
> In most cases, a) is probably preferable.

Yep, everyone should feel duly reminded.

For trivial patch modifications this sometime feels needless overkill,
but we need to follow the DCO precisely.   

Ian

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] Re: signed-off-by process