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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <AS8PR10MB47121BA9429673F0729D6DF3EEC39@AS8PR10MB4712.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date:   Wed, 4 May 2022 08:27:17 +0000
From:   Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
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

Stephen


ST Restricted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 9:42 AM
> 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.
>

Ok I add it now and update the stm32-next branch.

> 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).
> --

I have no doubt that you could have fixed it 😊. It was also easier for me to add my changes on top of it.

Cheers
Alex 


> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell