From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [96.44.175.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 452B133C9; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 17:11:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1667236261; bh=mU+9AZmUz9zDgjwtASID6aDN2sdOe/ZBfJlf1lULGWQ=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=fzG0i17ghDJ1hwfmP48R1Vh4CPmxEh49s7t7bI5lzd/OtbsbpumVJh/jGnr/OEgjO feSBizbLVPGlwi9T8nTYrN3e4vWay2Ai5gMLd9ufRbXnuJFLxVWrowMt+71DJm5mrt EWm7QsSMHf56LpMRcOCZiYkX2GBRHHZWHMAlXKRc= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67DEA1280E59; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:11:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HlwyhEqMgwer; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:11:01 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1667236261; bh=mU+9AZmUz9zDgjwtASID6aDN2sdOe/ZBfJlf1lULGWQ=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=fzG0i17ghDJ1hwfmP48R1Vh4CPmxEh49s7t7bI5lzd/OtbsbpumVJh/jGnr/OEgjO feSBizbLVPGlwi9T8nTYrN3e4vWay2Ai5gMLd9ufRbXnuJFLxVWrowMt+71DJm5mrt EWm7QsSMHf56LpMRcOCZiYkX2GBRHHZWHMAlXKRc= Received: from [172.20.4.92] (unknown [160.72.53.162]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AB1C1280685; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:11:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7b25ea15b6e508f435ca36967d9f4d4408f9a690.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: DCO chain of custody revisited (was Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] mfd: qcom-pm8xxx: drop unused PM8018 compatible) From: James Bottomley To: Konstantin Ryabitsev , Neil Armstrong Cc: Lee Jones , Krzysztof Kozlowski , tools@linux.kernel.org, users@linux.kernel.org Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:10:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local> 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: tools@linux.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2022-10-31 at 12:58 -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: [...] > I assume that in the final commit Lee rearranged the tags in the > following order: > > > 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. 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 who added the tag has no DCO significance because it doesn't affect the representations on the contribution. Regards, James