3 ms·

Yes, it should have been under "Co-developed-by".

• jacquesm 3y ago
  No, because as the exchange between the maintainer and the OP explicitly mentions it wasn't properly signed off on. That's the requirement for that particular tag: that a submission is in principle ready to be applied.
  • FireBeyond 3y ago
    Tell us, what "development" did Michael do that warranted him getting credit, and the OP not?
    • jacquesm 3y ago
      Kazinator did a pretty good job at that, besides: Michael is not taking any credit, LKML is there for all to read. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37675544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37675544
    • avgcorrection 3y ago
      The sticking point here seems to be the DCO, which the “signed off by” thing attests. With that attestation other people who sign-off to the DCO can carry the patch forward (maximum to a pull request against Linus' tree). Without it though you have a broken chain. But it ain't much of a sticking point. Most of the time it is just an oversight that can be pointed out and corrected. All it takes is for the maintainer to point it out and ask for it and then then the author to do it. (The patch author themselves need to do it or else there wouldn't be a point to the sign-off; forging a sign-off would defeat the purpose.)