On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 08:36:57 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Hi Jakub, > > > Pulled into net. Let me know if did it wrong :) > > Oops, didn't know it was your "turn" again, guess I haven't been reading > netdev enough. It's more of a ad hoc whenever Dave needs to step away for a day or two thing, than a schedule. Also I'm quite happy to pick things up from patchwork and the mailing list, so no real need to CC me, anyway :) > Looks good, but I didn't think this could possibly go wrong :) > > > FWIW there was this little complaint from checkpatch: > [...] > > WARNING: Duplicate signature > > #14: > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx> > > Hmm, yeah, so ... I was actually not sure about that and I guess it > slipped by. Most of the time, I've been editing it out, but what happens > is this: > > 1) I send a patch to our internal tree, to fix up some things. Unless > it's really urgent, I don't necessarily post it externally at the > same time. This obviously has my S-o-b. > 2) Luca goes through our internal tree and sends out the patches to the > list, adding his S-o-b. > 3) For the patches to the stack, I apply them, and git-am adds my S-o-b > again because it's not the last. > > So now we have > > S-o-b: Johannes > S-o-b: Luca > S-o-b: Johannes > > If I edit it just to be "S-o-b: Johannes", then it looks strange because > I've applied a patch from the list and dropped an S-o-b. It's still my > code, and Luca doesn't normally have to make any changes to it, but ... > This is what I've normally been doing I think, but it always felt a bit > weird because then it's not the patch I actually applied, it's like I > pretend the whole process described above never happened. > > If I edit and remove my first S-o-b then it's weird because the Author > isn't the first S-o-b, making it look like I didn't sign it off when I > authored it? > > If I edit and remove the last S-o-b, how did it end up in my tree? > > So basically my first S-o-b is certifying (a) or maybe occasionally (b) > under the DCO, while Luca's and my second are certifying (c) (and maybe > occasionally also (a) or (b) if any changes were made.) > > > Is there any convention on this that I could adhere to? :) Thanks for the explanation, seems like a reasonable stand so as long as you're aware this is happening, I'm happy :)
