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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS 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 1A333C43381 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 14:38:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4162077B for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 14:38:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728198AbfCUOiE (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:38:04 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:38333 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727823AbfCUOiD (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:38:03 -0400 Received: from p5492e2fc.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([84.146.226.252] helo=nanos) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1h6ypR-0006dI-PE; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:37:57 +0100 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:37:57 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Sean Christopherson cc: Jani Nikula , Jonathan Corbet , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz , Jonathan Cameron , Joe Perches , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Niklas Cassel Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Explicitly state ordering requirements for Co-developed-by In-Reply-To: <20190321142622.GA6519@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <20190320151140.32432-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <87lg18e4nx.fsf@intel.com> <20190321142622.GA6519@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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