在 2025-11-24星期一的 18:40 +0100，Krzysztof Kozlowski写道： > 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...
Local policy here, sigh... > > > > > 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? Well because previous revisions of the patch comes with only @icenowy.me SoB, and I think SoB is append-only... > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
