Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1723505 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-30 19:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-08-30 20:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-bys missing for commits in the block tree Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2017-08-30 19:10 +0200
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-bys missing for commits in the block tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-08-30 19:40 +0200
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-bys missing for commits in the block tree Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2017-08-30 20:20 +0200
| From | Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 19:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: Signed-off-bys missing for commits in the block tree |
| Message-ID | <ukeF4-2E4-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 03:06:47AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Commits
>
> b6dccf7fae43 ("nvme: add support for FW activation without reset")
> 62346eaeb2f1 ("nvme: define NVME_NSID_ALL")
> 9b483da15dd0 ("nvme-fabrics: log a warning if hostid is invalid")
> ad4e05b24c42 ("nvme: add symbolic constants for CC identifiers")
> 60b43f627a71 ("nvme: rename AMS symbolic constants to fit specification")
> 5533d42480d6 ("nvme-fc: Reattach to localports on re-registration")
> 48fa362b6c3f ("nvmet-fc: simplify sg list handling")
> 01f33c336e2d ("string.h: add memcpy_and_pad()")
> 17c39d053a46 ("nvmet: use memcpy_and_pad for identify sn/fr")
> a7b7c7a105a5 ("nvme-rdma: Use unlikely macro in the fast path")
> 5228b3280b9b ("nvme: fix uninitialized prp2 value on small transfers")
> 07fbd32a6b21 ("nvme: honor RTD3 Entry Latency for shutdowns")
>
> are missing a Signed-off-bys from their committers.
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?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 19:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: Signed-off-bys missing for commits in the block tree |
| Message-ID | <ukf86-2PE-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1723505 |
Hi Christoph, On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:09:36 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.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@canb.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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ukfKN-3iH-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1723530 |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 03:38:03AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell 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." Ok, we'll get it right next time.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web