George Spelvin <lkml@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 12:10:29PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 03:30:34PM +0000, George Spelvin wrote: >> > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:27:45AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> > > I don't know how this patch made it through two versions without anyone >> > > complaining that this paragraph should be done as a separate patch... >> > >> > I often fold comment (and spacing/formatting) patches in to a main >> > patch, when touching adjacent code anyway and it doesn't cause >> > distracting clutter. >> > >> > This seemed like such a case, which is why I submitted it as one. >> > But it's a bit of style thing. >> > >> >> We're super strict in Staging. :P Greg is more strict than I am. > > Okay, but it's my fault, not his. > >>> This should have you Signed-off-by. The Reviewed-by is kind of assumed >>>> so you can drop that bit. But everyone who touches a patch needs to >>>> add their signed off by. >>> >>> Er... all he did was add "staging: " to the front of the title. >>> >>> That's not a change to the code at all, and as trivial a change >>> to the commit message as adding "Reviewed-by:" to the end. >>> We don't need S-o-b for such things or we'd end up in a horrible >>> infinite recursion. >> >> You've misunderstood. He sent the email so he has to add his >> Signed-off-by. It's not at all related to changing anything in the >> patch. That's how sign offs work. > > Looking at my commits (just because I remember how they went in), > you seem to be right, but damn, submitting-patches.rst could be > clearer on the subject. > > I understand that it's addressed more to patch authors than > maintainers forwarding them, but I've read that thing a dozen times, > and the description of S-o-b always seemed to be about copyright. > > So I had assumed that edits which were below the de minimus standard > of copyright didn't need a separate S-o-b. > > Am I right that there should be an S-o-b from everyone from the > patch author to the patch committer (as recorded in git)? Yes, everyone either modifying or distributing (=submitting) the patch should add their s-o-b. > And the one exception is that we don't need S-o-b for git pulls after > that, because the merge commits record the information? Correct. When you do a git pull you are pulling the commits without any modification, so technically it's not even possible to add the s-o-b lines to the commits you are pulling. Modifying the commit logs would need a rebase and then it not would be a normal git pull anymore. -- https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
