From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933467AbcH3RhX (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:37:23 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:62444 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932789AbcH3RhQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:37:16 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=aX7aLl+rICB6T34Ig5BiTaIRoVGsmgRJ xaOeH6lZqpJf2EifYGmDrjwMmpSmqB7bxm432Q4NfU/MGJxOI+ExmfpeMBU7hlzS wELiy2NESGX7a2X8Qzvtb3WVkJRLm9OGppJlrPPw6R9iY/7P8sIdAM12VItfhMta wIbD2E3hwc8= From: Junio C Hamano To: Joe Perches Cc: git , LKML Subject: Re: git am and duplicate signatures References: <1472573556.5512.93.camel@perches.com> <1472576869.5512.98.camel@perches.com> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:37:10 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1472576869.5512.98.camel@perches.com> (Joe Perches's message of "Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:07:49 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6287D368-6ED8-11E6-AF60-51057B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Joe Perches writes: > (adding lkml) > > On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 09:54 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Joe Perches writes: >> > git-am -s will avoid duplicating the last signature >> > in a patch. >> > >> > But given a developer creates a patch, send it around for >> > acks/other signoffs, collects signatures and then does >> > a git am -s on a different branch, this sort of sign-off >> > chain is possible: >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Original Developer >> > Acked-by: Random Developer >> > Signed-off-by: Original Developer >> Both correct and allowing the earlier one duplicated as long as >> there is somebody/something else in between is deliberate. > > linux-kernel has a script (scripts/checkpatch.pl) that > looks for duplicate signatures (-by: [name]
) > > Should the last Signed-off-by: in the commit log be > excluded from this check? That is left for the kernel folks to decide, but excluding only "the last" does not make much sense to me. If you look for only "two consecutive same signatures" and barf, that would be in line with what we have been shooting for to support the above "original then random then back to original" example you gave us above.