On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 00:08 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:48 PM Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-10-07 at 12:08 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 12:03 PM Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanr...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > The author signed-off-by checks are currently very vague. > > > > Cases like same name or same address are not handled separately. > > > > Likely now, the type should be changed from NO_AUTHOR_SIGN_OFF > > to a single something else for all the other types of messages. > > > > > Since BAD_SIGNOFF is being used for a different context, then > probably BAD_AUTHOR_SIGNOFF. > > Should this work or anything else you have in mind?
That may be a bit too strong a wording as these aren't significant/bad defects. Maybe something like FROM_SIGNOFF_MISMATCH. It's not anything that would reject the patch. It's a pity type uses both SIGNOFF and SIGN_OFF.
