[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170831033400.423f0e6b@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 03:38:03 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Arnav Dawn <a.dawn@...sung.com>,
Guan Junxiong <guanjunxiong@...wei.com>,
Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
Martin Wilck <mwilck@...e.com>,
"Jan H. Schönherr" <jschoenh@...zon.de>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@...bit.com>,
Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>,
Roland Kammerer <roland.kammerer@...bit.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-bys missing for commits in the block
tree
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 <hch@....de> 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 <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Powered by blists - more mailing lists