Re: [RFC qemu 0/6] mirror: implement incremental and bitmap modes

[Fabian Grünbichler]

On September 3, 2020 3:23 pm, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 03.09.2020 um 14:57 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> On 03.09.20 14:38, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> > Am 03.09.2020 um 13:04 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> >> On 03.09.20 12:13, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
>> >>> On August 21, 2020 3:03 pm, Max Reitz wrote:
>> >>>> On 18.02.20 11:07, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
>> >>> I am not sure how 
>> >>> the S-O-B by John is supposed to enter the mix - should I just include 
>> >>> it in the squashed patch (which would be partly authored, but 
>> >>> not-yet-signed-off by him otherwise?)?
>> >>
>> >> I’m not too sure on the proceedings, actually.  I think it should be
>> >> fine if you put his S-o-b there, as long as your patch is somehow based
>> >> on a patch that he sent earlier with his S-o-b underneath.  But I’m not
>> >> sure.
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by means that John certifies the DCO for the patch (at least
>> > the original version that you possibly modified), so you cannot just add
>> > it without asking him.
>> 
>> But what if you take a patch from someone and heavily modify it –
>> wouldn’t you keep the original S-o-b and explain the modifications in
>> the commit message?
> 
> Ah, if that patch already had a S-o-b, then yes. You keep it not only to
> show who touched the patch, but also because your own S-o-b depends on
> the one from the original author (you only have the rights to contribute
> it because the original author had them and could pass them on to you).
> 
> I thought it was based on a patch that came without S-o-b.

it is (taken from John's git, with his approval, and implicit admission 
that S-O-B is just missing because it was a WIP branch/tree that I 
started from). that was also the reason why I kept that patch unmodified 
and sent my modifications as patches on-top, to make it easier for John 
to verify that that one patch is his original WIP one and add this 
missing S-O-B ;)