Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 15/15] rdma: account for the time spent in MIG_STATE_SETUP through QMP

["Michael R. Hines" <mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 06/28/2013 09:32 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/28/2013 01:15 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 28/06/2013 00:58, Eric Blake ha scritto:
>>>> Using the previous patches, we're now able to timestamp the
>>>> SETUP state. Once we have this time, let the user know about it
>>>> in the schema.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> Signed-off-by:
>>>> Michael R. Hines <mrhines@us.ibm.com>
>>> Usually, Reviewed-by lines are listed _after_ S-o-b lines -
>>> signature lines are typically chronological, but the patch has to
>>> be signed before a review can have any weight at getting the patch
>>> into a pull request :)
>> Hmm, that's not how I understood it.  The last line in the message
>> should be S-o-b.  If _I_ collect the Reviewed-bys when committing, I'll do
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael R. Hines <mrhines@us.ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> That's what I meant by signatures being chronological.  The _first_ line
> is Michael's s-o-b, since he wrote it; on any of Michael's respins where
> he adds signatures collected during the review process (which will only
> be reviewed-by or tested-by - here a review from Juan), those come next;
> then when the maintainer incorporates the patch into a pull request,
> further signatures are collected (any reviewed-by that were not
> incorporated by Michael because no respin was required, followed by the
> final s-o-b saying the maintainer modified the commit message as part of
> incorporating into the pull request).
>
>> But since Michael is the one collecting the tags from previous
>> submissions of the patch series, he's placing it right.
> Having Michael's s-o-b last, after reviewed-by picked up from earlier
> revisions, is not chronological.  Maintainers add reviewed-by before
> their own s-o-b, but only because their s-o-b is a secondary s-o-b; I
> still don't see why the original author would add reviewed-by before
> their (lone) s-o-b.
>

I don't mind prioritizing the reviewers. Everyone is putting
in way more review time than they probably otherwise want to. =)

Besides, the author's name is all over the email list - so it's obvious
that the email sender will have an s-o-b. It's less obvious who reviewed 
the patch.

- Michael