netdev - Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commits in the bpf-next 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20181212.164526.189502766995329983.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 12 Dec 2018 16:45:26 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Cc:     sfr@...b.auug.org.au, daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...nel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commits in the bpf-next
 tree

From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 15:39:10 -0800

> But this approach doesn't scale.
> We do rebase our trees when we need to fixup or drop patches and
> at any given point a number of commits will be committed by me
> and another set by Daniel. When we rebase we cannot keep adding
> our SOBs to the other person SOBs.
> Then comes the next rebase and we get to the point of
> double and triple SOBs ?

If you use "--signoff" in whatever commands do the rebase you will
get exactly one signoff for yourself and Daniel at maximum.  If it
is there already, git will not add a duplicate one on top.