Andrew Eikum aeikum@codeweavers.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:03:25AM +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@baikal.ru writes:
Zebediah Figura z.figura12@gmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Müller michael@fds-team.de
Signed-off-by: Michael Müller michael@fds-team.de Signed-off-by: Zebediah Figura z.figura12@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.