From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753891AbdHXU4P (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:56:15 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:54651 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753836AbdHXU4O (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:56:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 13:56:10 -0700 From: Darren Hart To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Gustavo A. R. Silva" , Andy Shevchenko , Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree Message-ID: <20170824205610.GF24167@fury> References: <20170803063743.1d50a5d2@canb.auug.org.au> <20170802235740.GB27974@fury> <20170803102810.37f7c6b0@canb.auug.org.au> <20170803155006.GA2234@fury> <20170805215829.GC1277@fury> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170805215829.GC1277@fury> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 02:58:29PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:50:06AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:06:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > > > I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the > > > > "patch's delivery path" and so should add a Signed-off-by tag. > > > > > > Yeah, I agree. Rebasing really is pretty much the exact same thing as > > > applying a patch. > > I will be away for a few days, but will follow up on this when I return. > In the meantime, my plan is to leave the current for-next branch alone > rather than rebasing it to fix the previous rebase which resulted in the > mixed committer/signoff issue Stephen's new test identified. > > I just want it to be clear I'm not ignoring the issue, but rather > planning on addressing it in commits going forward - based on the > results of the discussion below. > OK, with no additional feedback here, Andy and I have discussed and we will adapt our process by using individual review branches which 0-day can pull from which are considered transient and mutable. After this, the patches will be added to the common testing branch, which will now be fast-forward only [1]. After a short period, testing will move to for-next and fixes branches in preparation for pull-requests, just as before. Thanks, 1. We may eliminate the testing branch as it may not offer any value over for-next, but we'll work through at least one release cycle before doing so. -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center