linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the stm32 tree

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220504174151.3bfeeaf8@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Wed, 4 May 2022 17:41:51 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the stm32 tree

Hi Alexandre,

On Wed, 4 May 2022 07:28:53 +0000 Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...com> wrote:
>
> Actually this patch has been already merged in Rob tree. I just
> cherry-pick it in my tree to avoid a merge conflict later for other
> maintainers. So I didn't add my "Signed-off-by".  

You should add a SOB for every patch you add to your published tree.
That includes cherry-picked commits from other trees.

By the way, most maintainers (and Linus and I) are pretty adept at
sorting out merge conflicts (unless they are really complex, or course,
in which case you should probably have created a branch in one fo the
trees containing the conflicting commits from that tree and then merge
that branch into the both trees - and, of course, noted what is
happening in the merge commits).
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped