From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5A2C43381 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B2E12175B for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728507AbfCUTXn (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:23:43 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:48856 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725985AbfCUTXn (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:23:43 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Mar 2019 12:23:42 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,253,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="157140514" Received: from sjchrist-coffee.jf.intel.com (HELO linux.intel.com) ([10.54.74.181]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2019 12:23:41 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:23:41 -0700 From: Sean Christopherson To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Jani Nikula , Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz , Jonathan Cameron , Joe Perches , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Niklas Cassel Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements for Co-developed-by Message-ID: <20190321192341.GG6519@linux.intel.com> References: <20190321184316.8525-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190321184316.8525-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > Cc: Jani Nikula > Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz > Cc: Jonathan Cameron > Cc: Joe Perches > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman > Cc: Niklas Cassel > Cc: Jonathan Corbet > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > --- > > 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 > + Signed-off-by: First Co-Author > + Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author > + Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author > + Signed-off-by: Original Author > + > +Example of a patch submitted by a co-author:: > + > + Signed-off-by: Original Author > + Co-developed-by: Submitting Co-Author > + Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author > > > 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.