[PATCH] docs: Explicitly state ordering requirements for Co-developed-by

[PATCH] docs: Explicitly state ordering requirements for Co-developed-by

[Sean Christopherson]

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 <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
---
 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 <random@coauthor.example.org>
+	Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author <random@coauthor.example.org>
+	Signed-off-by: Original Author <original@author.example.org>
 
 
 13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:
-- 
2.21.0

Re: [PATCH] docs: Explicitly state ordering requirements for Co-developed-by

[Jani Nikula]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> 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 <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org>
> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> ---
>  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 <random@coauthor.example.org>
> +	Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author <random@coauthor.example.org>
> +	Signed-off-by: Original Author <original@author.example.org>

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.

BR,
Jani.

>  
>  
>  13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

Re: [PATCH] docs: Explicitly state ordering requirements for Co-developed-by

[Sean Christopherson]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:30:10PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> 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 <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Cc: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  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 <random@coauthor.example.org>
> > +	Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author <random@coauthor.example.org>
> > +	Signed-off-by: Original Author <original@author.example.org>
> 
> 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.

Re: [PATCH] docs: Explicitly state ordering requirements for Co-developed-by

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:30:10PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> 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.

Yes, that makes sense.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [PATCH] docs: Explicitly state ordering requirements for Co-developed-by

[Jani Nikula]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:30:10PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yes, that makes sense.

Agreed.

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center