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 309FD33DF; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 17:33:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1667237616; bh=M7h6WhlAAiIBPQDAKBVKeV7ZjlYX1GwgOYuPxB+zzSc=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=TOut6cC/6Om0TNlyc9JjeWg9b0lSKjXUkWmmUW3nQ5TkL5DM4IVvyKtn1NeDoKIvl 5xOpbQU/YVazKU4KMwA3tOGN0PFDGAt0vOAtqO7lv7kjbRhTo4hYiaqb6356frocaa hnFhpipSrI5VfMtdg306cxQ4zt6te4uR0P/EXJmI= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C18C128657D; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:33:36 -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 xVx1OY62Vwfx; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:33:36 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1667237609; bh=M7h6WhlAAiIBPQDAKBVKeV7ZjlYX1GwgOYuPxB+zzSc=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=saIGs07FV+GOeP0D7AA5miXXKkZBTNJxpylv5JTv4uw529gOpKyNGvyav1SimsT1H AuXu3ISR63SDLNzTzuTDsm28+DiDs2zcgPLIk2Mcab25MG7nfwJacbsUBfNQ9Zu3PV +7ofV2ME5qRaZkfYcZGKoOZhUHyIma8M9V7Mjfjo= Received: from [172.20.4.96] (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 3CDD1128652D; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9214fe10dee071bfc637fe1d90e251aa7f62480a.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 Cc: Neil Armstrong , Lee Jones , Krzysztof Kozlowski , tools@linux.kernel.org, users@linux.kernel.org Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:33:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20221031172319.znosu3gleyipeje5@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> <7b25ea15b6e508f435ca36967d9f4d4408f9a690.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20221031172319.znosu3gleyipeje5@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 13:23 -0400, 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 < > > > > krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > > > > 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 < > > > > krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > > > > 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. 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). James