From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266218AbUJATZ5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:25:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266243AbUJATZ4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:25:56 -0400 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.105]:38057 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266218AbUJATZc (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:25:32 -0400 Subject: Loops in the Signed-off-by process From: Dave Hansen To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Cc: Linus Torvalds Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1096658717.3684.980.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:25:17 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org With the recent ppc64 updates, a few patches in my tree didn't merge very easily. Being lazy, I asked one of the ppc64 developers to resync them for me. But, it happened to be someone other than the original author that did this. When they got sent to me again, the original author's (and my) Signed-off-by: lines were gone, replaced by the nice fellow who merged them. This was certainly an artifact of how he generates patches and obviously not malicious, but I still wonder what the "right" thing to do is. Do we show the logical flow? Signed-off-by: original author Signed-off-by: patch merger Signed-off-by: tree maintainer Or the actual flow of the patches, showing that they came back to the tree maintainer twice? Signed-off-by: original author Signed-off-by: tree maintainer Signed-off-by: patch merger Signed-off-by: tree maintainer Or, does it even really matter? -- Dave