Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Optimization batch 12: miscellaneous unthemed stuff

[Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 11:42 AM Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/4/2021 12:35 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 08:48:21AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> >
> >>>>           Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
> >>>>      +    Acked-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
> >>>
> >>> I believe the sign-off should always be the last thing in
> >>> the message. Perhaps Junio is willing to fix this without a
> >>> re-roll?
> >>
> >> Interesting, this is the first I've ever heard of such a requirement,
> >> and I've submitted patches this way numerous times and have seen
> >> others do it.  A quick search through git.git history says there are
> >> 5133 commits that place such trailers before the author's
> >> Signed-off-by, and 1175 that place them after.  While the former is
> >> clearly more common, and some of the latter could have been Junio
> >> adding trailers while applying the patches, there still seem like
> >> plenty of counter-examples suggesting that there is no rule here.
> >
> > I don't think there's a hard rule here. The usual advice (which I also
> > didn't find documented from a quick grep, but hopefully is kind of
> > intuitive) is that trailers should be chronological.
> >
> > So if you picked up a patch from person X who signed off, then you
> > modified and signed off the result, then Junio signed off after
> > applying, we'd expect that chain of custody to be represented by reading
> > top to bottom. And that's what happens if you use "am -s", "commit -s",
> > etc.
> >
> > Whether "Acked-by" happens after the author signs off or not is
> > debatable. Obviously it happens after the version of the patch that is
> > sent out. But if you re-send with an Acked-by, is the signoff your one
> > from before that happened first, or a new one that happened as you sent
> > out the patch? Perhaps a question for the philosophers. ;)
>
> I guess I was just interpreting that the "Acked-by" was part of
> the content you created, and hence it should be covered by the
> sign-off. I can imagine that if Junio added it, then it would be
> after your sign-off but before his.
>
> > Anyway, I think it is perfectly fine either way (as your numbers
> > indicate).
>
> I agree. I didn't mean to make a big deal of it.

Sorry, it was me who made a big deal out of it.  I was just really
surprised that I had missed another rule (you correctly caught one I
did miss on a recent other series I submitted), and so I thought it
was prudent to go digging and see how I had _also_ missed this rule
and refresh myself on the rules in general.  And once I did that,
although I felt this one probably didn't qualify, I thought it was
useful to share what I found and highlight what I thought needed
clarification if I was wrong.