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

[Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH 1/7] xz: add fall-through comments to a switch 
statement"):
> On 26.11.2021 11:04, Julien Grall wrote:
> > 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.

I 100% agree with Julien on all points in this thread.

Please can we keep the Linux S-o-b.

Note that S-o-b is not a chain of *approval* (whose relevance to us is
debateable) but but a chain of *custody and transmission* for
copyright/licence/gdpr purposes.  That latter chain is hightly
relevant to us.

All such S-o-b should be retained.

Of course if you got the patch somewhere other than the Linux commit,
then the chain of custody doesn't pass through the Linux commit.  But
in that case I expect you to be able to say where you got it.

Instead, I suggest that, having established what the Linux commit is,
it is far simpler for us all to regard the Linux commit as our
immediate source for the patch, rather than some ML post which you are
not, apparently, able to find.

Ian.