From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Adaptec SAS/SATA device driver [03/27] Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:17:52 -0500 Message-ID: <4214EDE0.3020006@pobox.com> References: <4214D5E8.9000907@adaptec.com> <4214EA6E.8020608@pobox.com> <4214EBD2.3050409@adaptec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:64687 "EHLO parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262351AbVBQTSH (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:18:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4214EBD2.3050409@adaptec.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Luben Tuikov Cc: SCSI Mailing List , James Bottomley Luben Tuikov wrote: > On 02/17/05 14:03, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> Luben, >> >> Your emails do not comply with the Linux kernel patch submission >> format. Please read >> http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html >> >> Most critical is rule number #5 (signed-off-by line), but also >> important is rule number #1 (providing a useful subject line). > > > Hi Jeff, > > Thanks for you reply. I'm well aware of the patch format. > I wasn't sure about a different subject line since it it all part > of a driver posting, "announce" rathern than "patch". Yes, I understand that. A key point is that it is impossible to differentiate your 27 patches, from looking at them in a email summary. Putting a short summary of each patch in the email subject line greatly assists those reviewing your code. > Yes, I forgot to add a signed off line. Sorry, but then again > I didn't write the code, just presenting it. (#5. Sign your work...) "sign your work" is more of a legal sign-off than a notation of authorship. In some cases, a company lawyer may be the person included in the signed-off-by line. Jeff