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 <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. Thanks, 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 so. -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
