On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 16:51 -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 11:53 -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
> >> very nice.  Tested with mhz27 too.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@gmail.com>
> >
> > I assume you mean Acked-by:/Tested-by: ?  Or are you going to push this
> > upstream?
> >
> 
> huh - I thought SOB was appropriate since Im maintainer of scx200_hrt.
> That said, youre maintainer of TIMEKEEPING, and author of the patch,
> so I consider you upstream.  Lets make it instead:
> 
> Acked-by: Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@gmail.com>

Thanks for clarifying. It might be good to review section 12-14 here (I
have to re-read it periodically myself):
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob_plain;f=Documentation/SubmittingPatches

If you're planning on distributing the patch yourself (pushing it up
towards Linus or giving it to someone else via a git tree or something),
then adding the signed-off-by would be appropriate (although not
necessarily in an email reply - usually just better to tell folks you've
queued it) before sending it onward.

Otherwise if you're not in the distribution path, an Acked-by: would be
more appropriate.

> Can you also push that trivial s/then/than/ patch I attached,
> and/or should I resend it inline, with git-send-email ?

Yep. I've just queued it into my tree. Thanks for that!

thanks
-john