lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] x86, olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:14:08 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Drake <dsd@laptop.org>
> > > Originally-from: Paul Fox <pgf@laptop.org>
> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> > > Cc: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net>
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > v4: really fix sign-off tags
> >
> > s/fix/break/? "Originally-from" is not a recognised tag. If this code
> > is based upon an earlier version from Paul then Signed-off-by: is
> > correct.
>
> No, the original ordering was *not* correct:
>
> From: Daniel Drake <dsd@laptop.org>
>
> [...]
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Drake <dsd@laptop.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Fox <pgf@laptop.org>
>
> In the previous discussion we had I explained what the rules for
> signoffs are. Let me quote Linus as well:
>
> " The sign-off chain should be very simple: the first person
> to sign off should be the author, and the last person to
> sign off should be the committer. "
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/22/489
>
> This is not true for this patch, because the first signoff does
> not match the 'From:' line (author).
>
> Nor is the last signoff the committer - i.e. the person sending
> me this patch to apply. Every maintainer along the route adds a
> signoff to the tail if it's propagated via email, or does a
> merge commit if it's a pull.
>
> If Daniel sends me a patch he should be the last signoff. If he
> authored the patch then he should also be the first (and, by
> implication, only) signoff. Signed-off-by does not recognize
> multiple authorship - that has to be written into the changelog,
> added via another type of tag - either approach is fine to me.

That's a bunch of stuff which you and Linus apparently cooked up and
didn't tell anyone about and didn't document anywhere. I'd never heard
about it before and I doubt if many other people knew about it. And if
anyone should have known about it, I should have!

So we have an unknown but probably large number of patches in the tree
now which do not follow this rule. So nobody can depend on
Signed-off-by: ordering in the tree as it stands.

So if we want to implement this (new!) rule then let's write the damn
thing down (in Documentation/SubmittingPatches) and tell people about
it! And, if poss, add a checkpatch rule to detect possible violations.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-27 01:25    [W:0.104 / U:0.616 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans