[PATCH v2] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements for Co-developed-by

[PATCH v2] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements for Co-developed-by

[Sean Christopherson]

The documentation for Co-developed-by is a bit light on details, e.g. it
doesn't explicitly state that:

  - Multiple Co-developed-by tags are perfectly acceptable
  - Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by must be paired together
  - SOB ordering should still follow standard sign-off procedure

Lack of explicit direciton has resulted in developers taking a variety
of approaches, often lacking any intent whatsoever, e.g. scattering SOBs
willy-nilly, collecting them all at the end or the beginning, etc...

Tweak the wording to make it clear that multiple co-authors are allowed,
and document the expectation that standard sign-off procedures are to
be followed.  Provide examples to (hopefully) eliminate any ambiguity.

Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
---

v1: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190320151140.32432-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com
v2: Rewrite the blurb to state standard sign-off procedure should be
    followed as opposed to dictating the original author's SOB be last.

 Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 24 +++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index be7d1829c3af..a7a9da68a384 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -545,10 +545,28 @@ person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the
 patch.  This tag documents that potentially interested parties
 have been included in the discussion.
 
-A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
+A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by other developer(s)
 along with the original author.  This is useful at times when multiple people
-work on a single patch.  Note, this person also needs to have a Signed-off-by:
-line in the patch as well.
+work on a single patch.  Every Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by
+a Signed-off-by: of the co-author.  Standard sign-off procedure applies, i.e.
+the ordering of Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs should reflect the
+chronological history of the patch insofar as possible.  Notably, the last
+Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch,
+regardless of whether they are the original author or a co-author.
+
+Example of a patch with multiple co-authors, submitted by the original author::
+
+	Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
+	Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
+	Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
+	Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
+	Signed-off-by: Original Author <original@author.example.org>
+
+Example of a patch submitted by a co-author::
+
+	Signed-off-by: Original Author <original@author.example.org>
+	Co-developed-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>
+	Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>
 
 
 13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:
-- 
2.21.0

Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements for Co-developed-by

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:43:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> The documentation for Co-developed-by is a bit light on details, e.g. it
> doesn't explicitly state that:
> 
>   - Multiple Co-developed-by tags are perfectly acceptable
>   - Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by must be paired together
>   - SOB ordering should still follow standard sign-off procedure
> 
> Lack of explicit direciton has resulted in developers taking a variety
> of approaches, often lacking any intent whatsoever, e.g. scattering SOBs
> willy-nilly, collecting them all at the end or the beginning, etc...
> 
> Tweak the wording to make it clear that multiple co-authors are allowed,
> and document the expectation that standard sign-off procedures are to
> be followed.  Provide examples to (hopefully) eliminate any ambiguity.
> 
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org>
> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>

Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements for Co-developed-by

[Sean Christopherson]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:43:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> The documentation for Co-developed-by is a bit light on details, e.g. it
> doesn't explicitly state that:
> 
>   - Multiple Co-developed-by tags are perfectly acceptable
>   - Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by must be paired together
>   - SOB ordering should still follow standard sign-off procedure
> 
> Lack of explicit direciton has resulted in developers taking a variety
> of approaches, often lacking any intent whatsoever, e.g. scattering SOBs
> willy-nilly, collecting them all at the end or the beginning, etc...
> 
> Tweak the wording to make it clear that multiple co-authors are allowed,
> and document the expectation that standard sign-off procedures are to
> be followed.  Provide examples to (hopefully) eliminate any ambiguity.
> 
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org>
> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> ---
> 
> v1: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190320151140.32432-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com
> v2: Rewrite the blurb to state standard sign-off procedure should be
>     followed as opposed to dictating the original author's SOB be last.
> 
>  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 24 +++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> index be7d1829c3af..a7a9da68a384 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> @@ -545,10 +545,28 @@ person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the
>  patch.  This tag documents that potentially interested parties
>  have been included in the discussion.
>  
> -A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
> +A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by other developer(s)
>  along with the original author.  This is useful at times when multiple people
> -work on a single patch.  Note, this person also needs to have a Signed-off-by:
> -line in the patch as well.
> +work on a single patch.  Every Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by
> +a Signed-off-by: of the co-author.  Standard sign-off procedure applies, i.e.
> +the ordering of Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs should reflect the
> +chronological history of the patch insofar as possible.  Notably, the last
> +Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch,
> +regardless of whether they are the original author or a co-author.
> +
> +Example of a patch with multiple co-authors, submitted by the original author::
> +
> +	Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
> +	Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
> +	Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
> +	Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
> +	Signed-off-by: Original Author <original@author.example.org>
> +
> +Example of a patch submitted by a co-author::
> +
> +	Signed-off-by: Original Author <original@author.example.org>
> +	Co-developed-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>
> +	Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>
>  
>  
>  13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:
> -- 

Belatedly discovered that Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst has a nearly
identical section on Co-developed-by.  I'll send a v3 to tweak that
verbiage as well and add a link to submitting-patches.rst.

Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements for Co-developed-by

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2019-03-21 at 12:23 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:43:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > The documentation for Co-developed-by is a bit light on details, e.g. it
> > doesn't explicitly state that:
> > 
> >   - Multiple Co-developed-by tags are perfectly acceptable
> >   - Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by must be paired together
> >   - SOB ordering should still follow standard sign-off procedure

While I still think co-developed-by: is unnecessary and
almost none of the existing uses of this have this
sequence of "Co-developed-by: <name/email>" followed directly
by "Signed-off-by: <same name/email>", here's a possible
checkpatch addition for it.

---
 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index d0001fd1112d..e938fd56cc20 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -2687,6 +2687,15 @@ sub process {
 			} else {
 				$signatures{$sig_nospace} = 1;
 			}
+
+# Check Co-developed-by: suceeded by Signed-off-by: with same name and email
+			if ($sign_off =~ /^signed-off-by:$/i &&
+			    $linenr > 1 &&
+			    $rawlines[$linenr - 2] =~ /^\s*co-developed-by:\s*(.*)/i &&
+			    $1 ne $email) {
+				WARN("BAD_SIGN_OFF",
+				     "Co-developed-by: should be suceeded by Signed-off-by: with same name/email\n" . "$here\n" . $rawlines[$linenr - 2] . "\n" . $rawline);
+			}
 		}
 
 # Check email subject for common tools that don't need to be mentioned

Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements for Co-developed-by

[Tobin C. Harding]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:47:26PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-03-21 at 12:23 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:43:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > The documentation for Co-developed-by is a bit light on details, e.g. it
> > > doesn't explicitly state that:
> > > 
> > >   - Multiple Co-developed-by tags are perfectly acceptable
> > >   - Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by must be paired together
> > >   - SOB ordering should still follow standard sign-off procedure
> 
> While I still think co-developed-by: is unnecessary and
> almost none of the existing uses of this have this
> sequence of "Co-developed-by: <name/email>" followed directly
> by "Signed-off-by: <same name/email>", here's a possible
> checkpatch addition for it.

Tested-by: Tobin C. Harding <tobin@kernel.org>

Catches missing SOB of co-developer.

Hope this helps,
Tobin.