Thread (33 messages) 33 messages, 6 authors, 2021-12-16

Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] Basic StarFive JH7100 RISC-V SoC support

From: Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>
Date: 2021-11-16 17:01:28
Also in: linux-clk, linux-devicetree, linux-gpio, linux-riscv, lkml

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 17:44, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 5:13 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 6:09 PM Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 4:01 PM Emil Renner Berthing [off-list ref] wrote:
Why?
Submitting Patches tells about chronological order and last SoB to be
from the submitter.
These both are correct. Note the difference between 'last SoB' and
'SoB to be last [line]'.

Here is the excerpt:
"Notably, the last Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer
submitting the patch."
I think having the S-o-b in the final line is far more common, and it does
help identify who added the other tags, i.e. the person signing off
immediately below. I don't reject patches that do this the other way round,
but it's something that felt unusual here.
Then I'll stick to what's most common. In any case patch 12 and 16 got
it wrong by both conventions.

/Emil
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help