On Tuesday, September 09, 2014 12:40:51 PM Mark Brown wrote: > > --FJ0JV+AOCbvjFtNn > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 11:26:49PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > The s-o-b is more of a gray area, but again it is supposed to be possible > > to verify which it won't be if it bounces. > > That's always going to be an issue with signoffs - people's addresses > can and do go bad at any point. I know and that's a gray area as I said. Whether or not it is appropriate to submit a patch with an s-o-b that is known to bounce is a good question to me. It is true, though, that this particular patch was originally submitted when the s-o-b address didn't bounce, so I may restore the tag when applying the patch. Need to think about that. -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
