[U-Boot] [PATCH 17/28] armv8/fsl-lsch3: Enable system error aborts

[York Sun]

On 03/19/2015 01:06 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 13:02 -0700, York Sun wrote:
>>
>> On 03/19/2015 12:58 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 12:54 -0700, York Sun wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 03/19/2015 12:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 18:14 +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:45:48PM +0000, York Sun wrote:
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> York, where's your signoff since you're the one submitting the patch?
>>>>
>>>> I am sending many patches in this set. Since I didn't contribute to this patch,
>>>> I didn't add my signed-off-by.
>>>
>>> That's not what signed-off-by means.  I realize (though never understood
>>> why) the U-Boot project differs from Linux rules in terms of whether
>>> custodians are expected to sign off patches when applying, but does that
>>> extend to submitting patches by e-mail as well?
>>>
>>
>> I don't have the answer myself. I haven't added any of my signed-off-by for the
>> patches I squashed/tested/sent. For small patch set, I would request the
>> original author to send each patch. For large set with dependency, I send patch
>> on behalf of the authors. I don't want to take credit for the patch I didn't
>> contribute the change. I test all of them though.
> 
> The From: line is for giving credit.  Signed-off-by shows the path the
> patch took.  Plus, leaving your name off puts all the blame on the
> author, when they weren't the ones who decided the patch was ready to
> submit. :-)
> 

When multiple patches are squashed, I put authors' name in signed-off-by. For
this reason, I think adding my signoff will be confusing.

But I agree with you that I should have my name somewhere for the patches I
sent. Doesn't the email "from" qualify?

York