On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:39:20AM -0500, Felix Blyakher wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:12:45PM -0500, Felix Blyakher wrote:
>>> From: Olaf Weber <olaf@xxxxxxx>
>>> There had been reports where xfs filesystem was randomly
>>> corrupted with fsfuzzer, and xfs failed to handle it
>>> gracefully. This patch fixes couple of reported problem
>>> by providing additional checks in the superblock
>>> validation routine.
>>> Signed-off-by: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>
>> Since this patch is from Olaf, shouldn't he have a s-o-b line as well?
> I was following the guidelines from the SubmittingPatches:
> The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body,
> and has the form:
> From: Original Author <author@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> The "from" line specifies who will be credited as the author of the
> patch in the permanent changelog. If the "from" line is missing,
> then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine
> the patch author in the changelog.
> So, is "From:" enough here, or "Signed-off-by" is needed as well?
The From line determines author-ship. If this is Olaf's patch, then the From
is right. My understanding is that s-o-b is intended as a "I didn't do
anything stupid (e.g., incorporate licensed code, etc.) while working on
this patch/handling this patch." This makes me believe that the author
should include a s-o-b line as well.
So, for example, whenever _I_ send a patch that I authored, I have both a
>From and a s-o-b. If someone picks it up (e.g., akpm), he'd add his s-o-b,
so when he resends it, it'd have my from, my s-o-b, and his s-o-b. As far as
I know, other kernel folks do the same.
My public GPG key can be found at