On 24/11/2025 16:25, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > 在 2025-11-24星期一的 13:31 +0100，Krzysztof Kozlowski写道： >> On 24/11/2025 13:20, Conor Dooley wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 01:08:00PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski >>> wrote: >>>> On 24/11/2025 13:05, Conor Dooley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I don't really get what the fuss is with the dual signoff, >>>>> what's the >>>>> point having both when they represent the same person? Pretty >>>>> sure it >>>>> was you (Krzysztof) and Arnd that told me not to both doing the >>>>> double >>>>> signoff. >>>> >>>> I do not object having or not having dual signed off HERE. >>>> >>>> I never said that. Just like I never said "From" has to be >>>> changed. >>> >>> I didn't say you objected to both being there. *I* am saying that >>> it is >> >> Ah, sure. Yes, if both identities work I would propose to skip second >> SoB. But I also stopped objecting of having two identities listed, as >> long as they are correct. > > Well it's unfortunate that some policy now requires me to list the > second identity.
No policy asked you... > > Should I resend the whole patchset with the ISCAS mail? You can, it probably would solve the issue, unless you change the author, but why you cannot do what I asked at the beginning - set correct order of SoBs, so the @icenowy.me being the last? Best regards, Krzysztof
