Re: [PATCH 1/7] xz: add fall-through comments to a switch statement

From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>,
	Ian Jackson <iwj@xenproject.org>,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] xz: add fall-through comments to a switch statement
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:52:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bef5ff51-475a-e8c4-83fc-950df4516399@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6bcd1555-ee0d-dd6d-55ca-0ca0e64c3623@xen.org>

On 26.11.2021 11:04, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
> On 26/11/2021 09:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Anyway, I think it would save time for everyone (you had to manually
>>> delete signed-off-by after all) if you just copy the commit (including
>>> all the signed-off-by) message as-is.
>>
>> I don't think I see why you found it necessary to verify the S-o-b set.
> 
> This is a list of difference with the Linux commit that was unexplained 
> to me.
> 
>>
>> Also note that, for things to be useful in our tree, I may also edit
>> commit messages in mechanical ways (e.g. to change file or function
>> names). I don't think you can expect a 1:1 match in any event.
> 
> I am fully aware that I can't expect a 1:1 match. However, if I see a 
> difference, then I need to be able to explain it.
> 
> For this case, you provided some sort of an explanation but so far, I am 
> still waiting for a link to confirm that the signed-off-by match the one 
> on the ML.

I haven't been able to easily find a mail archive holding this patch.
However, to me

http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1710.1/04375.html

clearly suggests that Jiri merely took the patch and applied it.

For patches 2 and onwards the Linux commits contain links (which I
did also retain in the posted patches), i.e.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20191104185107.3b6330df@tukaani.org/T/#u
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210604085656.12257-1-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com/T/#u
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211010213145.17462-2-xiang@kernel.org/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211010213145.17462-6-xiang@kernel.org/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211010213145.17462-4-xiang@kernel.org/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211010213145.17462-3-xiang@kernel.org/

Going through those made me notice that on patches 4 and onwards I
should put back one more S-o-b, albeit for all four I then can't help
thinking that authorship is really the other way around. But I'm not
going to put effort into finding out ...

This exercise also made me notice that I have the last three patches
the wrong way round. Not that this would matter much.

FTAOD: Are these further inquiries of yours actually intended to tell
me that I should not have applied the ack that you've sent first for
this one patch?

Jan