Jared suggested:
> [...] I propose adding the following to patches which were

> sponsored by a particular library:
> Sponsored-by: The Library

I don't think this works for us. Some libraries will not wish to be
associated publicly with features before their buyer/commissioner has
approved them, especially private libraries.

This is true of many of my clients as well. This line would not be required for any given patch, it merely offers a way for libraries who want credit to ensure that they receive it.

So should we hold back work until sponsor approval (and we've been
burned that way before, with a delay meaning work is stale and needs
rebasing before it reaches the community, then there is no funding
left to do that and it falls on the floor and kittens die) or would
you accept follow-up patches that only add Sponsored-by lines with a
fast-track through QA and RM?

The Sponsored-by lines serve only for record keeping, so I see no reason why the RM could not add a record-keeping patch with the Sponsored-by line at the request of the developer (similar to the way I added a bunch of Sponsored-by lines in a patch to 3.6.x).

Regards,

Jared