Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: allow tags between co-developed-by and their sign-off

From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>
To: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
	Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	<workflows@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: allow tags between co-developed-by and their sign-off
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:15:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9c7f1643-2384-e458-23c1-8cd2326bcbf4@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKXUXMyOk+06ZRc7gvYMA=KHvZZp1FXiCJC5Tp9M=SUQfQnBVQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/23/23 16:16, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> Hi Przemek,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 12:29 PM Przemek Kitszel
> <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Allow additional tags between Co-developed-by: and Signed-off-by:.
>>
>> Removing the "immediately" word from the doc is a great summary of the
>> change - there is no need for the two tags to be glued together, barring
>> ease of checkpatch implementation.
>>
> 
> I think the currently suggested process of keeping Co-developed-by and
> Signed-off-by glued together is good, and I see no reason why this
> should be changed, nor do I see any drawbacks.
> 
> 
>> Additional tags between Co-developed-by and corresponding Signed-off-by
>> could include Reviewed-by tags collected by Submitter, which is also
>> a Co-developer, but should sign-off at the very end of tags provided by
>> the Submitter.
>>
> 
> The other tags, Reviewed-by, etc., can go anywhere just not between
> Co-developed-by and corresponding Signed-off-by. So, why do you have
> this need to put it exactly there rather than putting it anywhere
> else?

Multiple times during review it was odd for me to look at thw SoB of 
submitter not being the last thing, and that's the result of the current
rule - co-dev authors put collected RB as last thing, only to keep their
CdB and SoB together.

> 
> The commit message tells me what you are proposing, but there is no
> rationale in the commit message and that is put up for discussion here
> with the proposed change.
> 
> I see many potential areas of work for the checkpatch script, but in
> my humble opinion, this really is not one of the rules that needs to
> be improved.

I started the other way, identified what was pissing me off, then tried
to fix that, despite of requirement of writing in perl.

> 
> Lukas
> 
> (...snipped the rest...)