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 01:33:27PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> If the changes from v2 to v4 were material enough for that question to
> be relevant then the Reviewed-by tag shouldn't have been kept because
> the patch needed reviewing again.
> 
> > By placing it above the Signed-off-by line, we at least clearly
> > indicate that it's Neil who put it there.
> 
> Who put it there does not matter, so it's not really a problem that
> needs solving.
> 
> However, there is a problem if b4 is preserving Reviewed-by tags for
> patches with material changes ... the review has to be redone and thus
> the tag should be lost.  You can only keep Reviewed-by tags for
> cosmetic changes (or obviously patches which don't change from version
> to version).

I am not disagreeing, but as far as b4 is concerned, there is no way to
recognize this reliably. A rebase to a newer tree may have resulted in the
patch-id changing, with the actual logic remaining exactly the same. It's the
responsibility of the person submitting the series to make sure that the
trailers are still relevant -- the best I can do is to clearly indicate who
was the guilty party behind the decision.

-K