linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commits in the scsi tree

linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commits in the scsi tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi James,

The commit series

  94b76dcac422 ("scsi: qla2xxx: Fix system crash while triggering FW dump")
to
  b96b8da34c40 ("scsi: aacraid: Fix out of bounds in aac_get_name_resp")

is missing Signed-off-bys from its committer.  It looks like you have
rebased a series from Martin ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commits in the scsi tree

[James Bottomley]

On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 09:27 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> The commit series
> 
>   94b76dcac422 ("scsi: qla2xxx: Fix system crash while triggering FW
> dump")
> to
>   b96b8da34c40 ("scsi: aacraid: Fix out of bounds in
> aac_get_name_resp")
> 
> is missing Signed-off-bys from its committer.  It looks like you have
> rebased a series from Martin ...

Yes we had to drop a commit which proved problematic in the fixes tree.
 The rule, I believe, is that only the person who transforms the email
to a git tree should be the last signoff in the commit log, even if
they're a tree pulling into another one and thereafter the signoffs go
in the merge commit, so the signoff sent by me in the signed tag when I
send the main tree to Linus is my signoff for transmitting all the
commits, which includes the rebased ones in this instance.

James

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commits in the scsi tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi James,

On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 16:41:36 -0700 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
>
>  The rule, I believe, is that only the person who transforms the email
> to a git tree should be the last signoff in the commit log, even if
> they're a tree pulling into another one and thereafter the signoffs go
> in the merge commit, so the signoff sent by me in the signed tag when I
> send the main tree to Linus is my signoff for transmitting all the
> commits, which includes the rebased ones in this instance.

According to Linus:

"Rebasing really is pretty much the exact same thing as
applying a patch."

And so should have a Signed-off-by from the committer.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commits in the scsi tree

[Martin K. Petersen]

James,

> Yes we had to drop a commit which proved problematic in the fixes tree.

I'm still not sure why you decided to rebase instead of waiting for me
to drop the patch. That's how we usually do it...

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commits in the scsi tree

[James Bottomley]

On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 12:24 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> James,
> 
> > 
> > Yes we had to drop a commit which proved problematic in the fixes
> > tree.
> 
> I'm still not sure why you decided to rebase instead of waiting for
> me to drop the patch. That's how we usually do it...

We can certainly do it that way around.  If you want to rebase to drop
the patch, I can set the top of the fixes tree to your rebase. 

James