From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-io1-f42.google.com (mail-io1-f42.google.com [209.85.166.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45FCC33C9 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 17:33:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f42.google.com with SMTP id o65so10326667iof.4 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 10:33:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ieee.org; s=google; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ntoiOEGFJZA3pI7OFF8xEV8oEp3XSIxx6l+/dv61Nr4=; b=HDchOKtjvYZDBrbXznMPZCJ1Z4OI80Rnu0nlXmB7mY3hBu7GTcaM2agoyEMPghIkl8 jNBhY801sCv012iDvjqsPsgc94Jz+qWBcxs9xlWbiQrimovuAd1iTHZlQ7P7H3CiXeBR AYiltw6BThGV5lFZAAAoQ13J5/66F9Z1jQCcI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ntoiOEGFJZA3pI7OFF8xEV8oEp3XSIxx6l+/dv61Nr4=; b=bbha+PMl1e8Taqp5LzkMchXvWFKfkvLUAibuhmQrcG23Ud8FOD6Li6taQ3ezC31fm2 CPTZhUHO2Yv9XnsnJsZTIaRzGJnYss/iffIQpP8bfHHzZvrGjiK7kL5XLj5oSt0LUYa9 +OKTKk8/CMxCNn8I7P1rGIyu5ohpNfUYHQZsHuhWJ2Di2DfMrOlcFIwKuQiHBAYOGSx5 HOU9Cbc6zGNi+jrBwc0y5vgL/hIWUruxxiOuVe+CmaMM9/JT3LQhofBsVexb4Q540gFG JO28VLKtQOrIAbk/7ybJcscDLE0tl84zwZdb0HgLxeUQaPMVTytzcqzhl3KZ+WbuL28w /ePA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3IYaPI12ldFNAdtL1MaEKhCihsd0aCUQtXob/tlLpM+ZQg4w+f 5AJYHNb4XD22v4lG0fEBauss7w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7Pn9lXLH9E9+sZzl6gfxBkOjGEZUAwgm5YSLQlkrIcDzn0RuICq5ct+yr+gFEJMOl7Y/5BAw== X-Received: by 2002:a5e:920c:0:b0:6c5:da79:4cd1 with SMTP id y12-20020a5e920c000000b006c5da794cd1mr7428077iop.78.1667237612233; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 10:33:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.22.22.4] ([98.61.227.136]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id x6-20020a0566380ca600b003495b85a3b9sm2915528jad.178.2022.10.31.10.33.31 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 31 Oct 2022 10:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <89ce6b7a-3500-6026-0044-9916f5a567b7@ieee.org> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 12:33:30 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: tools@linux.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2 Subject: Re: DCO chain of custody revisited (was Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] mfd: qcom-pm8xxx: drop unused PM8018 compatible) Content-Language: en-US To: Konstantin Ryabitsev , James Bottomley Cc: Neil Armstrong , Lee Jones , Krzysztof Kozlowski , tools@linux.kernel.org, users@linux.kernel.org 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> From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <20221031172319.znosu3gleyipeje5@meerkat.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. -Alex > > -K >