Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:03:25AM +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes:
Zebediah Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Michael Müller <michael(a)fds-team.de>
Signed-off-by: Michael Müller <michael(a)fds-team.de> Signed-off-by: Zebediah Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com>
If I recall correctly the rules you can't add a sign-off for somebody else without an explicit permission from that person.
The sign-off wasn't added; it was on the original patch.
Still, it's you who is sending this patch, and you need to provide only your own sign-off, since the original author no longer takes any responsibility for this piece of code.
If the patch is not changed, preserving the original sign-off is the right thing to do.
I thought Signed-off-by meant something like, "I agree to help debug this if something goes wrong." It seems wrong to make that statement to wine-devel on someone else's behalf. If I put a sign-off and send it to wine-staging that means something different to me than if I send it to wine-devel.
It should be taken to mean something like "I think that this is good enough to go into Wine". I don't think the meaning of Signed-off should change based on how the patch was submitted, particularly since patches can get into staging from various sources, including wine-devel. If we want some mechanism to explicitly indicate that a patch is good enough for staging but not for main Wine, we should add a different header. I don't think that it should be the default assumption for anything that goes into staging, and I see no evidence that Michael meant it that way either. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org