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:0.023 / U:89.440 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site