On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:02:59PM -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 04:37:43PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 06:33:38PM +0000, Alberto Ponces wrote: > > >> Add touchscreen platform data for the Teclast X3 Plus tablet. > > >> > > >> Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Alberto Ponces <ponces26@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Queued, thanks. > > > > > > Note for the future: Author signoff goes first, then reviewers, then committer. > > > > In this case Alberto was the committer, so his sign-off is last, as it > > should be. Any reported-by, suggested-by, acked-by or reviewed-by he > > collected should go above his sign-off. Once you picked up his patch > > you 'll become committer, so any markings you add should go between > > his sign-off and yours. > > Of course, you're correct. Thank you for the correction - and Alberto, apologies > for the noise/confusion. > > Dmitry, I reviewed documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and > 5.Posting.rst and didn't find this clearly defined. Have I missed where this is > documented, or is an update in order? I do not think is was ever stated explicitly, the closest comes "14) The canonical patch format" which states that sign off goes before the --- divider. I think it comes naturally if you consider patch vs pull request: if you decided to pull from Alberto's tree (or anyone else's tree) instead of taking the patch via email, then if they'd put non-sign-off tags after the sign-off, they'd end up in your and then Linus' tree like that, as you would not add your sign-off when doing git merge. But if you believe this should be called explicitly then adding a few more words to section 14 should work. Thanks. -- Dmitry
