From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:39:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m1T7dSUl010990 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:39:31 -0800 Message-ID: <47C7B6C2.4030304@sgi.com> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:39:46 +1100 From: Timothy Shimmin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25-rc4 References: <20080229035000.7B24058C4C0F@chook.melbourne.sgi.com> <47C78629.104@sandeen.net> <47C79078.4070504@sgi.com> <47C79BD8.4050708@sandeen.net> <47C7A92C.10007@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <47C7A92C.10007@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: markgw@sgi.com Cc: Eric Sandeen , lachlan@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com Mark Goodwin wrote: > > > Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Lachlan McIlroy wrote: >>> Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> Lachlan McIlroy wrote: >>>>> Please pull from the for-linus branch: >>>>> git pull git://oss.sgi.com:8090/xfs/xfs-2.6.git for-linus >>>>> >>>>> This will update the following files: >>>>> >>>>> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c | 14 +++++++------- >>>>> fs/xfs/xfs_clnt.h | 2 +- >>>>> fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c | 2 +- >>>>> fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h | 2 +- >>>>> fs/xfs/xfs_vfsops.c | 4 ++-- >>>>> 5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> through these commits: >>>>> >>>>> commit b7405bb65a83e819dd3b21a6d9636c279d9ce79a >>>>> Author: Niv Sardi >>>> um, I thought Jeff wrote that patch. >>> I'm sure he did too. Every now and then our ptools -> git merge >>> tools stuff up. >>> >> >> IMHO it's worth finding out why; authorship should not be taken lightly. >> >> -Eric > > yes I agree. Niv's take: > Inspected by: bnaujok,jeffpc > and no Signed-off > > Lachlan, would that have confused the scripts? > Yes it would. One needs the signed-off-by's. From our sgi internal web page... ============================================================================== Bad ptool checkin descriptions Bad checkin descriptions for XFS to ptools are ones which are missing a one line overall description and ones where the mod has an external author and there is no Signed-Off-By lines for him/her. So what you need to have is:... The first line to be a summary description. Then if you need further details, then add a blank line followed by more details in further paragraphs. Then end with the signed-off-by's. The script needs signed-off-by to determine real author and Linus uses the first line as a summary line in his summary code. The script will look at the ptools mod reviewer list to add in further signed-off-by's when it gets converted to git. So you only need 1 signed-off-by for the external author and if it is just an internal author, you don't need any signed-off-bys. (And yes ideally, the reviewers should probably be acked-by... it is on the TODO list). ============================================================================== --Tim