Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1709102 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-11 01:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-08-11 16:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the kvm tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-08-11 01:30 +0200
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the kvm tree David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> - 2017-08-11 08:30 +0200
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the kvm tree Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com> - 2017-08-11 14:40 +0200
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the kvm tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-08-11 16:10 +0200
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 01:30 +0200 |
| Subject | linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the kvm tree |
| Message-ID | <ud53Q-4ev-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi all,
Commit
53a70daf3cfd ("KVM: nVMX: get rid of nested_release_page*")
is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 08:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <udbCh-8qm-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1709102 |
On 11.08.2017 01:28, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Commit
>
> 53a70daf3cfd ("KVM: nVMX: get rid of nested_release_page*")
>
> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>
Thanks,
Paolo's signed-off is missing.
--
Thanks,
David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 14:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <udhom-3ww-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1709285 |
2017-08-11 08:29+0200, David Hildenbrand:
> On 11.08.2017 01:28, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Commit
> >
> > 53a70daf3cfd ("KVM: nVMX: get rid of nested_release_page*")
> >
> > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> >
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo's signed-off is missing.
Yes, it is a result of our workflow and there are many more patches like
that. In this case, I originally committed the patch on 08-03 and Paolo
rebased the branch on 08-07.
We rebase when testing discovers bugs and for the first few release
candidates (when there are not enough changes to put into next).
Should all rebases be done with the --signoff option?
Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 16:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <udiNr-4xf-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1709547 |
Hi Radim, On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:36:24 +0200 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com> wrote: > > Should all rebases be done with the --signoff option? More or less. rebase with the --signoff option will add a duplicate Signed-off-by unless the already existing one is last in the current commit. Linus has said that doing a rebase is no different to applying a patch, so a new committer needs to add a Signed-off-by tag. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web