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 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B9A1C28B28 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 09:46:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tsIfB-0003BO-6o; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 05:46:09 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tsIen-0002wQ-55 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 05:45:45 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tsIel-00029E-9g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 05:45:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1741772738; 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; bh=E8AaB6TM272cqWpsF6SNmO1IeRQlbo8gjZlv5u0Y4pE=; b=Z5wsB6MRcYuQp2coWPTAQEAzpr9XnrR1d4rMe7XwJy8/IpkxIGJBT2JjrkUi9Ln1U5/2L8 XIDsNu9yPrvbTe2Afg3wahWBErswG3zOe7njWahx5nHm68V0TWZ8QKky87/spWWZ9/oBwv xip62msiBuprqqH0kt8dGylR0fxIk4k= Received: from mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-658-u_-vwZ_XM4u--BNDB4eQxQ-1; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 05:45:36 -0400 X-MC-Unique: u_-vwZ_XM4u--BNDB4eQxQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: u_-vwZ_XM4u--BNDB4eQxQ_1741772735 Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A07F19560A1; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 09:45:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (unknown [10.22.74.4]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 768011955BCB; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 09:45:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B696321E675F; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 10:45:29 +0100 (CET) From: Markus Armbruster To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Akihiko Odaki , Bibo Mao , Peter Maydell , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , Richard Henderson Subject: Giving your own patches your Reviewed-by Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 10:45:29 +0100 Message-ID: <878qpamvk6.fsf@pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org I stumbled over commits that carry the author's Reviewed-by. There may be cases where the recorded author isn't the lone author, and the recorded author did some meaningful review of the patch's parts that are not theirs. Mind that we do need all authors to provide their Signed-off-by. When the only Signed-off-by is from the recorded author, and there's also their Reviewed-by, the Reviewed-by is almost certainly bogus. Now, accidents happen, no big deal, etc., etc. I post this to hopefully help reduce the accident rate :) Here's my quick & sloppy search for potentially problematic uses of Reviewed-by: $ git-log --since 'two years ago' | awk -F: '/^commit / { commit=$0 } /^Author: / { guy=$2 } /^ Reviewed-by: / { if ($2 == guy) { print commit; print guy } }'