Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 09:46:10 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
        rafael@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: cpufreq: cpufreq-qcom-hw: Convert to YAML
 bindings
Message-ID: <20211005041610.byncxlv3aeo65frw@vireshk-i7>
References: <20211004044317.34809-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
 <20211004070531.sexvnqmnkoe4j6a2@vireshk-i7>
 <20211004072222.GE16442@workstation>
 <YVszd2UMw9F5LqWC@ripper>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YVszd2UMw9F5LqWC@ripper>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 04-10-21, 10:01, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> If you wrote the patch, then Angelo handled it, then you handled it
> again the double S-o-b captures that nicely.
> 
> Looking it from the other angle, if you remove the first S-o-b, then you
> forgot to signed it off when you authored the original patch and if you
> skip the last S-o-b then you didn't adequately sign off the final
> result.

Hmm, interesting that it can be looked this way. I am wondering if
between 10 different versions two people ping pong the ownership of
the patch, then will we need to capture 5-5 signed-off-by's from each
of them :)

From my understanding, that I had until now, the list of tags specify
who all performed what different roles in the patch
development/submission and when did that happen (sort of timeline), so
last tag is added by the new handler of the patch. But adding two
signed-off-by's by a single guy looks fishy, though it may actually be
correct :)

-- 
viresh