[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio implementation

[Thomas Monjalon]

2014-12-09 05:41, Ouyang, Changchun:
> Hi
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Qiu, Michael
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 11:23 AM
> > To: Ouyang, Changchun; Thomas Monjalon; Stephen Hemminger
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio implementation
> > 
> > On 12/9/2014 9:11 AM, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > >> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 5:31 PM
> > >> To: Ouyang, Changchun
> > >> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio
> > >> implementation
> > >>
> > >> Hi Changchun,
> > >>
> > >> 2014-12-08 14:21, Ouyang Changchun:
> > >>> This patch set bases on two original RFC patch sets from Stephen
> > >> Hemminger[stephen at networkplumber.org]
> > >>> Refer to [http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-August/004845.html ]
> > >>> for
> > >> the original one.
> > >>> This patch set also resolves some conflict with latest codes and
> > >>> removed
> > >> duplicated codes.
> > >>
> > >> As you sent the patches, you appear as the author.
> > >> But I guess Stephen should be the author for some of them.
> > >> Please check who has contributed the most in each patch to decide.
> > > You are right, most of patches originate from Stephen's patchset,
> > > except for the last one, To be honest, I am ok whoever is the author
> > > of this patch set, :-), We could co-own the feature of Single virtio
> > > if you all agree with it, and I think we couldn't finish Such a
> > > feature without collaboration among us, this is why I tried to communicate
> > with most of you to collect more feedback, suggestion and comments for this
> > feature.
> > > Very appreciate for all kinds of feedback, suggestion here, especially for
> > patch set from Stephen.
> > >
> > > According to your request, how could we make this patch set looks more
> > like Stephen as the author?
> > > Currently I add Stephen as Signed-off-by list in each patch(I got the
> > agreement from Stephen before doing this :-)).
> > 
> > Hi Ouyang,
> > 
> > "Signed-off-by" should be added by himself, because the one who in the
> > Signed-off-by list should take responsibility for it(like potential bugs/issues).
> > 
> > Although, lots of patches are originate from Stephen, we still need himself
> > add this line :)
> 
> Hi Thomas, 
> It that right? I can't add Stephen into Signed-off-by list even if I have gotten the agreement from Stephen,
> What 's the strict rule here?

Stephen sent the patches with his Signed-off, then you added yours.
This is OK.
Using git am, author would have been Stephen. To change author now, you can
edit each commit with interactive rebase and "git commit --amend --author=Stephen".
No need to resend now. Please check it for next version of the patchset.

-- 
Thomas