Re: DCO chain of custody revisited (was Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] mfd: qcom-pm8xxx: drop unused PM8018 compatible)

[Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 01:10:58PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
> > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
> > 
> > This would indicate that it's *Lee* who is claiming responsibility
> > for collecting the Reviewed-by tag from Krzysztof, because it is in
> > his chain of custody. However, this is not the case -- it was Neil
> > who collected the tag, and therefore the "more correct" order should
> > be:
> > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
> > 
> > If my reasoning is incorrect, then I need to go back to the drawing
> > board.
> 
> You're way over thinking this.

Yes, but it's my job to overthink this, so nobody else has to. :)

> The only tag that matters from the DCO point of view is Signed-off-by.
> That's the ordering we care about for the chain of custody.  All other tags
> are irrelevant.  Of course, it's nice to think that reviews happen *after*
> the code was modified, which is why most of us like to see the Reviewed-by
> after the initial author signoff,

But this is where it becomes complicated. The Reviewed-By trailer was sent to
the v2 of the series, and incorporated into v3(via b4 trailers). If we stick
it below Signed-off-by, then it may suggest that Krzysztof reviewed the v4 of
the patch.

By placing it above the Signed-off-by line, we at least clearly indicate that
it's Neil who put it there.

-K