On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 02:35:17PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 20:42 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Davidlohr Bueso <davidl...@hp.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 20:25 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Davidlohr Bueso <davidl...@hp.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidl...@hp.com> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <waiman.l...@hp.com> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.l...@hp.com> > > > > > > > > So, that's not a valid SOB sequence either, the person sending me a > > > > patch should be the last person in the SOB chain > > > > > > Which is why I had it like that in the original version. > > > > The problem with that order was that the first person should be the > > primary author and in the 'From' tag. > > > > A SOB chain is intended to depict the true propagation/route of a > > patch, from author, through maintainers who handle and forward it, to > > the maintainer who applies it to a Git tree. The patch starts up with > > a single SOB (the primary author's) and every 'hop' after that adds a > > SOB to the tail of the existing SOB chain. > > Multiple "Signed-off-by:"s are also used when there are > multiple authors of a single patch.
Abused; which is exactly what we're saying is not correct. While doing so we've also found people abusing SoB where Reviewed-by was meant and other 'creative' use. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
