Hi,
On 11 March 2017 at 04:52, James james@balean.com.au wrote:
Hi Felix,
Not 'hijacking' a patch, just following Linux Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 guidelines.
As you know, I contacted you directly with this patch suggestion prior to posting to the mailing list (keeping strictly to rule c). I had hoped you would make a new version:
On 09.03.2017 08:53, James Balean wrote:
Did you want to test/submit this?
Perhaps I misinterpreted your response, which stated:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 at 04:13, Felix Brack fb@ltec.ch wrote:
This and probably more has to be accessible by _all_ mailing list
subscribers. Please post there.
This was confusing, as I could see no way to convert this work to a patch of your unapproved v2 patch (being new to this process).
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 at 00:07, Felix Brack fb@ltec.ch wrote:
Remove this "Signed-off-by" tag as I neither made nor tested these
modifications.
My understanding from the 'submitting patches' guide is that the square bracket nomenclature I used indicates minor changes to an existing patch, thereby providing you with credit whilst also denoting that you do not endorse the changes.
What if I fix a
bug in my v2 patch? Should I then increase from v2 to v4?
Perhaps someone can clarify, but it seems logical that the version number is in order of contribution to the project, rather than being tied to any specific user. Especially given the software license it is under.
It is better to make comments on the patch and let the original author respin it. If you have not heard after a week then I suppose you can resend it with the changes, i.w.c. I think you DO need to keep the original author's sign-off and increment the version.
Felix, are you planning to resend this?
Regards, Simon