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

[Ouyang, Changchun]

Hi Bruce,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richardson, Bruce
> Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 5:47 PM
> To: Ouyang, Changchun
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio implementation
> 
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 06:40:23AM +0000, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 2:12 PM
> > > To: Ouyang, Changchun
> > > Cc: Qiu, Michael; Stephen Hemminger; dev at dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Single virtio
> > > implementation
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > So I understand correctly, Stephen need care for from patches from 1
> > to 16, I need care for the 17th patch from next version.
> > What I mean "caring for" above is:  debug and validate them and send
> > out patches
> >
> > Thanks
> > Changchun
> >
> Just to clarify Thomas point here about use of "git am". If you get a patch
> from someone to test or work on, use "git am" to apply it, rather than "git
> apply", since "git am" generates a commit in your local repo and thereby
> maintains the original authorship of the patch. If you do "git apply" and
> subsequently commit yourself, you - rather than the original author - will
> appear as the "author" of the patch, and you need to amend the commit as
> Thomas suggests to fix this.
> 
> So in short:
> * git am == good
> * git apply == bad

Thanks very much for the clarification. I will use git am for next version.

Changchun