From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (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 730B4FBF5 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 03:20:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706671235; cv=none; b=niD5TujuTA5Tfb4rv2kTBYdM7F4cXI3qbhvpUSVnng7iv0895qz5VWwkP0FUmjGuL2nyIKhE9G5AJm382lfDQjTNrG9vzds0mg1vmE6kuSHgl5u91kaIHKiTk/t3qEvV4GeqJ9j+mErirPQvsuh78ozl1G7WCpfUz4faPyD2jmY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706671235; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/Qqp2jJQoiQcy+9XQkKKYRoLjCuSThH/r6RUzSX1uqU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Riyjbg6HkhGk9z8SllnjK4imha8l//7ovRiZTJqsh+H3AO6SEkwm9D5u0AxlaGLEyUYspT/2h7nmUeNRZbJX2u30fYXnaqlhbfWBSngz252ff1T1Y/kJVsEX1aGJTHTl4abnHeq3eMrf/zitbgITOTeeR7At2BIjAsH3X7nwOtY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=HRM9cMDa; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="HRM9cMDa" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=zzXR450Aj9tc/HlQzVUxw3+SErrBtlBnnD9/Q5pNze0=; b=HRM9cMDaKfn1MvaHYCkKefsPRy 9bSCCe85Zyn+jMFI+XsJaCcQH3IlaC/pfvhGRHXJCM/MJpWfJDIzPquAW4DbUfuXLWppwFfdzvCS+ HL0No4hrgxFGuFQNOXA66iO/s0cxdtvZDFYQo7ADGHXtTwds9+VZZMI1LhVZAUKCdaAnYW5kGqlH1 wbWgBNufajje0pmyda8zm69Zmy0uTr9qRD5Q8XcyaNWItVdIf4vVs23kmuAX2kndsF0MU+cKr4gWu E6JPEUS7HO/8PYXDd/KtigZcHVL3mGLwsh6weT4HHXTVvFxkWecmpswK3BlskFtWYkOa6O7I+hbrd OU0LIZbw==; Received: from [50.53.50.0] (helo=[192.168.254.15]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rV19M-00000001Mfi-1xkP; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 03:20:32 +0000 Message-ID: <52988afe-00df-47e5-b577-4e2dc36cf3d4@infradead.org> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:20:32 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: commit tag order vs. "b4 am" Content-Language: en-US To: Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: Tony Luck , x86@kernel.org, Reinette Chatre , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <118a560d-9e5f-4bc4-b0d2-ee0b3d6a5120@infradead.org> <20240130-solid-seahorse-from-camelot-e0ecdb@lemur> From: Randy Dunlap In-Reply-To: <20240130-solid-seahorse-from-camelot-e0ecdb@lemur> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, On 1/30/24 17:57, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 04:47:26PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> Reinette noticed that v14 of my resctrl/SNC patch series[1] did not adhere >>> to the tag order proscribed in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst >>> Specifically my "Signed-off-by:" was now the last tag, instead of >>> appearing before the "Reviewed-by:" and "Tested-by" tags as it had in >>> v13. >>> >>> A little digging showed that my tag had been moved to the end by "b4 am" >>> when I used it to pick up some additonal tags. >>> >>> An e-mail discussion with Konstantin ensued to determine if this was >>> a bug. Konstantin said: >>> >>> This is the intended behaviour, because b4 follows the chain-of-custody >>> procedure. If we encounter a Signed-off-by trailer matching the identity of >>> the user preparing the series, we move it to the bottom to indicate that the >>> chain-of-custody boundary has moved to include the code review trailers >>> received after the initial submission. >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/tools/20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local/ >>> >>> Basically, the "Signed-off-by" trailer is special because it indicates that >>> everything above it is the responsibility of the person doing the sign-off. If >>> we kept your Signed-off-by in the original spot, then it wouldn't be clear who >>> collected and applied the trailers. >> >> I can't find "chain of custody" anywhere in Documentation/process/, nor a >> specification or example of this ordering. >> >> Where did this b4 requirement come from? > > Many discussions at the Maintainer Summit and on the tools/users lists. E.g.: > https://lore.kernel.org/tools/20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local/ > Not your problem, but decisions that are made at the Maintainer Summit are not well-documented IMO. They don't get passed down to the rest of us. Yes, I do look at Mr Corbet's summaries, but they lack sufficient detail for this. > The chain of custody approach is the only one that makes sense because it > allows keeping track of who applied which trailers. I know that most people > don't think about it twice, but it matters from the perspective of process. > If we need to put it into the official documentation, I'm happy to submit the > patch. I don't yet agree that the tag order change is needed, but yes, it should be documented, so please do that. thanks. -- #Randy