Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:23:35 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |