[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 02:58:29PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:50:06AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:06:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, 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.
> I will be away for a few days, but will follow up on this when I return.
> In the meantime, my plan is to leave the current for-next branch alone
> rather than rebasing it to fix the previous rebase which resulted in the
> mixed committer/signoff issue Stephen's new test identified.
> I just want it to be clear I'm not ignoring the issue, but rather
> planning on addressing it in commits going forward - based on the
> results of the discussion below.

OK, with no additional feedback here, Andy and I have discussed and we will
adapt our process by using individual review branches which 0-day can pull from
which are considered transient and mutable. After this, the patches will be
added to the common testing branch, which will now be fast-forward only [1].
After a short period, testing will move to for-next and fixes branches in
preparation for pull-requests, just as before.


1. We may eliminate the testing branch as it may not offer any value over
for-next, but we'll work through at least one release cycle before doing

Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-24 22:56    [W:0.057 / U:4.888 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site