On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 12:14 AM Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > > 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. > Oh right sorry, It was a "visual mistake" on my part, it's SIGN_OFF indeed and not SIGNOFF.
And I agree with the strong wording. So I will probably make it FROM_SIGN_OFF_MISMATCH. And after that send in a v6. (If I run out of single digit version numbers after this, it will be embarrassing :( ). Thanks, Dwaipayan.
