From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74924C43381 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 14:26:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BEF8218FF for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 14:26:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728390AbfCUO0Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:26:24 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:30664 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725985AbfCUO0X (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:26:23 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Mar 2019 07:26:23 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,253,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="128931688" Received: from sjchrist-coffee.jf.intel.com (HELO linux.intel.com) ([10.54.74.181]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2019 07:26:23 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:26:23 -0700 From: Sean Christopherson To: Jani Nikula Cc: Jonathan Corbet , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz , Jonathan Cameron , Joe Perches , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Niklas Cassel Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Explicitly state ordering requirements for Co-developed-by Message-ID: <20190321142622.GA6519@linux.intel.com> References: <20190320151140.32432-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <87lg18e4nx.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87lg18e4nx.fsf@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:30:10PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Per Thomas' yet-to-be-merged "tip tree handbook"[1], Co-developed-by and > > Signed-off-by must be paired together, i.e. the co-authors' SOB mustn't > > be scattered willy-nilly, and the author's SOB must be the first SOB > > *after* the last Co-developed-by/Signed-off-by pair. Provide an example > > to eliminate any ambiguity. > > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181107171149.165693799@linutronix.de > > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner > > Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz > > Cc: Jonathan Cameron > > Cc: Joe Perches > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > Cc: Niklas Cassel > > Cc: Jonathan Corbet > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > > --- > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 9 +++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > > index be7d1829c3af..f4b5c4850601 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > > @@ -547,8 +547,13 @@ have been included in the discussion. > > > > A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > > along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people > > -work on a single patch. Note, this person also needs to have a Signed-off-by: > > -line in the patch as well. > > +work on a single patch. Note, Co-developed-by: must be accompanied by a > > +Signed-off-by: of the co-author(s). All Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs > > +must precede the Signed-off-by: of the original author. > > + > > + Co-developed-by: Random Co-Author > > + Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author > > + Signed-off-by: Original Author > > Seems to me this suggests Original Author is involved in the patch from > start to finish, and then gives Random Co-Author credit as well. > > IME it's more common for the Original Author to write a patch, and > Random Co-Author to take over, finishing the job. Chronologically in > this case I'd put the sign-offs the other way round. Hmm, and my experience is exclusively limited to contributing code to someone else's patches. Rather than dictate exact ordering, what about deferring to standard sign-off procedure? E.g.: A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people work on a single patch. Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a Signed-off-by: of the co-author(s). As per standard sign-off procedure, the ordering of Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs should reflect the patch's handling insofar as possible. Notably, the last Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch, regardless of whether they are the original author or a co-author.