Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: introduce dedicated page about code provenance / sign-off

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 05:08:46PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 12:58:18PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > On 23/11/23 12:40, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > Currently we have a short paragraph saying that patches must include
> > > a Signed-off-by line, and merely link to the kernel documentation.
> > > The linked kernel docs have alot of content beyond the part about
> > > sign-off an thus is misleading/distracting to QEMU contributors.
> > > 
> > > This introduces a dedicated 'code-provenance' page in QEMU talking
> > > about why we require sign-off, explaining the other tags we commonly
> > > use, and what to do in some edge cases.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >   docs/devel/code-provenance.rst    | 197 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >   docs/devel/index-process.rst      |   1 +
> > >   docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst |  18 +--
> > >   3 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > >   create mode 100644 docs/devel/code-provenance.rst
> 
> > > +Other commit tags
> > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > +
> > > +While the ``Signed-off-by`` tag is mandatory, there are a number of
> > > +other tags that are commonly used during QEMU development
> > > +
> > > + * **``Reviewed-by``**: when a QEMU community member reviews a patch
> > > +   on the mailing list, if they consider the patch acceptable, they
> > > +   should send an email reply containing a ``Reviewed-by`` tag.
> > > +
> > > +   NB: a subsystem maintainer sending a pull request would replace
> > > +   their own ``Reviewed-by`` with another ``Signed-off-by``
> > 
> > Hmm not sure about replacing, they have different meaning. You can merge
> > patch you haven't reviewed. But as a maintainer you must S-o-b what you
> > end merging (what is mentioned below in "subsystem maintainer").
> 
> I've always taken it as implied that patches I queue are reviewed by me,

Well sometimes I queue patches not in my area that I have seen languish
on list with no replies for too long. I generally do a cursory review
but not to the level that I feel justifies Reviewed-by.


> but replies here suggest I'm in a minority on that.  That shows why it is
> worth documenting this for QEMU explicitly :-)

Absolutely.