mpr: Return correct error code for non network paths and REMOTE_NAME_INFO_LEVEL in WNetGetUniversalName.

[Alexandre Julliard]

Andrew Eikum <aeikum at codeweavers.com> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:03:25AM +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>> Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry at baikal.ru> writes:
>> 
>> > Zebediah Figura <z.figura12 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> From: Michael Müller <michael at fds-team.de>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Müller <michael at fds-team.de>
>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Zebediah Figura <z.figura12 at gmail.com>
>> >> > 
>> >> > If I recall correctly the rules you can't add a sign-off for somebody
>> >> > else without an explicit permission from that person.
>> >> 
>> >> The sign-off wasn't added; it was on the original patch.
>> >
>> > Still, it's you who is sending this patch, and you need to provide only your
>> > own sign-off, since the original author no longer takes any responsibility
>> > for this piece of code.
>> 
>> If the patch is not changed, preserving the original sign-off is the
>> right thing to do.
>> 
>
> I thought Signed-off-by meant something like, "I agree to help debug
> this if something goes wrong." It seems wrong to make that statement
> to wine-devel on someone else's behalf. If I put a sign-off and send
> it to wine-staging that means something different to me than if I send
> it to wine-devel.

It should be taken to mean something like "I think that this is good
enough to go into Wine". I don't think the meaning of Signed-off should
change based on how the patch was submitted, particularly since patches
can get into staging from various sources, including wine-devel.

If we want some mechanism to explicitly indicate that a patch is good
enough for staging but not for main Wine, we should add a different
header. I don't think that it should be the default assumption for
anything that goes into staging, and I see no evidence that Michael
meant it that way either.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.org