lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 31 Aug 2017 03:38:03 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Sagi Grimberg <>,
        Arnav Dawn <>,
        Guan Junxiong <>,
        Max Gurtovoy <>,
        James Smart <>,
        Martin Wilck <>,
        "Jan H. Schönherr" <>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Philipp Reisner <>,
        Lars Ellenberg <>,
        Roland Kammerer <>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-bys missing for commits in the block

Hi Christoph,

[Sorry if this is a duplicate, it timed out sending the first time]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:09:36 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <> wrote:
> They all have singnoffs from the original committer.  It's just
> that we team-maintain the tree and had a rebase.
> Are we supposed to add another Signoff just for the rebase?

From a previous discussion, Linus said:

"On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell <> wrote:
> I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the
> "patch's delivery path" and so should add a Signed-off-by tag.  

Yeah, I agree. Rebasing really is pretty much the exact same thing as
applying a patch."

So, yes, you are suppose to.
Stephen Rothwell

Powered by blists - more mailing lists