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. > >> Cc: Adham Abozaeid <adham.abozaeid@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Reviewed-by: Ajay Singh <ajay.kathat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@xxxxxxx> > >> --- > > > > 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. regards, dan carpenter
