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

["Qiu, Michael" <michael.qiu@intel.com>]

On 2014/12/9 22:19, Ouyang, Changchun wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richardson, Bruce
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 5:47 PM
>> To: Ouyang, Changchun
>> Cc: Thomas Monjalon; dev@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@6wind.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 2:12 PM
>>>> To: Ouyang, Changchun
>>>> Cc: Qiu, Michael; Stephen Hemminger; dev@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@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@6wind.com]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 5:31 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Ouyang, Changchun
>>>>>>>> Cc: dev@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@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.

BTW, you also can use "git am ./xx/*" to patch a series patch set to
your local git tree.

Thanks,
Michael
> Changchun
>
>