From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 F31E53C00 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 17:37:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1667237865; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=LbXFFKbbsf9Zr9GNMfn1Y11G0KB/LuRSATTiS6oErG4=; b=iEZwh8WeROJlG+0w806SDJF6rMJtkxwWmxR4oTgKcdxFO2wWziSNiy9+3Wl9mLlmYEY54P 1A6CbM2PsZlwSRxGR0jUQ7YUumnOAAfTdZ4gZt/IvdOKyb5Nl2hf1Dv/dDT9e6sYVHeMH0 y/fBDA8qmj3ck4Lkpu8OwsjcPeCBbg0= Received: from mail-wr1-f70.google.com (mail-wr1-f70.google.com [209.85.221.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-479-npmMkfYeMZGwBIM2kh6wSw-1; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:37:44 -0400 X-MC-Unique: npmMkfYeMZGwBIM2kh6wSw-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f70.google.com with SMTP id d23-20020adfa417000000b002364a31b7c9so3268215wra.15 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 10:37:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=LbXFFKbbsf9Zr9GNMfn1Y11G0KB/LuRSATTiS6oErG4=; b=jcYVihQPJnTIlIm6h1NlKhS/uyuFeBsMJsZ5tsS+XEQgh9VOtlAB6lRgApexLiPIbP DozYU3RA4BE1clYQ1jyaAz8EFRyxyJTawJU6hnTNG9T1EhJo4eUODru3XLtDEpFXEx+w YaikZuYyHrabwS3XViztwe/3Lngoy0hQu1SN+cfJcWmNd2dfGWFkzaSnfb1sisM62yCO zebIWYp091Bn1zAV5oGvWuX037cdFfwtZ7efm0a0x/FugeuSBIhYUVt739ljs+gTf6Y2 frPZdO/y4Y9FUC4/tNZ5YrodyGT/f1GxFnRM2iI6HzL4q7Bq4YNd7n30n7cTgL15p1XG EovA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3HSNTI+DkY/eihTCG/IZqd5Nr78/zwRnjyIvPZvHal9FNBOnUx w2JnSCaHN/JopbMeorHNxztshheOmll1P4RSIvdb5Do3Y5a3VPES9x6P291OyUh0etO9d4N9Rpg u8kS0u2qi9V9F6ZkS X-Received: by 2002:adf:ec8a:0:b0:236:5b80:da83 with SMTP id z10-20020adfec8a000000b002365b80da83mr8642963wrn.509.1667237863493; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 10:37:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM729CTorTP4Cvche4nr8oAHq6fJnrRN5oJsfWOBzJCoH3826RCXbRAsB+qdBz+5SWNXedkMBA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ec8a:0:b0:236:5b80:da83 with SMTP id z10-20020adfec8a000000b002365b80da83mr8642939wrn.509.1667237863175; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 10:37:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com ([2.52.15.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id jb1-20020a05600c54e100b003c6b874a0dfsm8369308wmb.14.2022.10.31.10.37.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 31 Oct 2022 10:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:37:39 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: Neil Armstrong , Lee Jones , Krzysztof Kozlowski , tools@linux.kernel.org, users@linux.kernel.org Subject: Re: DCO chain of custody revisited (was Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] mfd: qcom-pm8xxx: drop unused PM8018 compatible) Message-ID: <20221031133130-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> 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> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: tools@linux.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:58:42PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > Hijacking this thread for greater good. > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 04:35:38PM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 31/10/2022 16:32, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, Neil Armstrong wrote: > > > > > > > The PM8018 compatible is always used with PM8921 fallback, so PM8018 > > > > compatible can be safely removed from device ID table > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong > > > > > > Tags should appear chronologically. > > > > Indeed, they were added by b4, I'll report this. > > My trouble is that there are seemingly as many opinions about the order of > trailers as there are subsystem maintainers. The last time we had a long > discussion about this on the users list I got a strong message that what > matters most is the chain of custody, and the Signed-off-by trailer indicates > the chain of custody boundary. > > In the scenario below, the chain consists of 3 people: > > | Suggested-by: Reporter 1 <...> > | Signed-off-by: Developer 1 <...> -- initial DCO boundary > | Reviewed-by: Reviewer 1 <...> > | Tested-by: Tester 1 <...> > | Signed-off-by: Submaintainer 1 <...> -- intermediate DCO boundary > | Acked-by: Submaintainer 2 <...> > | Signed-off-by: Maintainer 1 <...> -- final DCO boundary > > In terms of DCO, this makes the following claims: > > Developer 1: > - I am responsible for this change > - It was suggested by Reporter 1 > > Submaintainer 1: > - I am signing off on this change > - I have collected the trailers from Reviewer 1 and Tester 1 > > Maintainer 1: > - I am signing off on this change > - I have collected the trailer from Submaintainer 2 > > In the current case, and using this principle, the following order is correct: > > | Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > | Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong > > Because the Reviewerd-by trailer was sent to the v2 of the series and was > collected by Neil, so Neil is the person who is the DCO signatory of that > chain of custody in the v4 of the series. > > I assume that in the final commit Lee rearranged the tags in the following > order: > > | Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong > | Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > | 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: I think this is often incorrect: I often pick a patch, then amend it adding tags from reviewers, typically I add tags at the end just because it's easier, and tools like git-interpret-trailers exist. > | Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > | 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. > > -K