From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 1wt.eu (wtarreau.pck.nerim.net [62.212.114.60]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DFD97C; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 20:25:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 29VKG6Cu021656; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 21:16:06 +0100 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 21:16:06 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: Alex Elder Cc: Konstantin Ryabitsev , James Bottomley , Neil Armstrong , Lee Jones , Krzysztof Kozlowski , tools@linux.kernel.org, users@linux.kernel.org Subject: Re: DCO chain of custody revisited (was Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] mfd: qcom-pm8xxx: drop unused PM8018 compatible) Message-ID: <20221031201606.GB21566@1wt.eu> References: <20220928-mdm9615-dt-schema-fixes-v4-0-dac2dfaac703@linaro.org> <20220928-mdm9615-dt-schema-fixes-v4-8-dac2dfaac703@linaro.org> <6858acf3-eb90-41aa-b714-a2ceb6afe9db@linaro.org> <20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local> <7b25ea15b6e508f435ca36967d9f4d4408f9a690.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20221031172319.znosu3gleyipeje5@meerkat.local> <89ce6b7a-3500-6026-0044-9916f5a567b7@ieee.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: tools@linux.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <89ce6b7a-3500-6026-0044-9916f5a567b7@ieee.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:33:30PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On 10/31/22 12:23 PM, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 01:10:58PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong > > > > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones > > > > > > > > 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. > > I prefer this interpretation. That is, the "outer" (last) sign-off > is essentially indicating that everything within (above) it is what > their sign-off applies to. > > Most (all?) of the other tags (like Suggested-by, etc.) don't necessarily > have a strong requirement or precise meaning, so in > a way it doesn't matter that much. But I think this convention > adds a small amount of value. At least for stable backports we've been using this a lot because we often have to adapt patches that get backported, and it's often convenient to add a small comment summarizing the changes after the last s-o-b and before the backporter's. But I agree that most tags probably do not care much about ordering if the contents are not changed. Sometimes a maintainer might reword a commit message and in this case maybe the reviewed-by order may be relevant. Willy