From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Holger Macht Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] acpi/libata: Express dependencies for devices on dock stations and bays Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:00:49 +0100 Message-ID: <20120121140048.GA15111@homac.suse.de> References: <20120120001817.GA27706@homac.suse.de> <20120120002312.GJ27706@homac.suse.de> <1327154100.11421.5.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:45087 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751594Ab2AUOAw (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:00:52 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1327154100.11421.5.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett , Jeff Garzik On Sat 21. Jan - 07:55:00, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 01:23 +0100, Holger Macht wrote: > > On Fr 20. Jan - 01:18:18, Holger Macht wrote: > > > Patches 2 through 5 are just a refresh of the patches from Matthew > > > Garrett sent to this list in September 2010 [1]: > > > > I successfully faked the sender of the patches from Matthew (now it > > looks as they were sent by him) due to the use wrong use of git > > format-patch. Sorry for that, really wasn't intended. Hope this is not a > > problem. > > Actually, it is; the way you sent them the first time: From: in the > body is the correct way. If you go about faking the sender, you're > likely to get rejected as spam if people do SPF checking. Plus it's a > bit confusing for maintainers because I'd really like to know who sent > the patch to verify the signoff chain. Sure, I rather meant this like "hope it's not a problem this one time". It was by plain mistake because my mutt took the "From:" header as it should and I didn't notice. I also don't want people to send mails in my name, that's what the apology actually was for, directed to Matthew. > > Other than this, it looks fine to me. Thanks, Holger