[PATCH] devtools: add Co-developed-by to commit log check

[PATCH] devtools: add Co-developed-by to commit log check

[Stephen Hemminger]

Add Co-developed-by to the recognized tag pattern and tag
sequence order in check-git-log.sh.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
---
 devtools/check-git-log.sh | 11 ++++++-----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/devtools/check-git-log.sh b/devtools/check-git-log.sh
index 45a58fab4f..dee4056dad 100755
--- a/devtools/check-git-log.sh
+++ b/devtools/check-git-log.sh
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ bodylines=$(git log --format='%b' --reverse $range)
 fixes=$(git log --format='%h %s' --reverse $range | grep -i ': *fix' | cut -d' ' -f1)
 stablefixes=$($selfdir/git-log-fixes.sh $range | sed '/(N\/A)$/d'  | cut -d' ' -f2)
 tags=$(git log --format='%b' --reverse $range | grep -i -e 'by *:' -e 'fix.*:')
-bytag='\(Reported\|Suggested\|Signed-off\|Acked\|Reviewed\|Tested\)-by:'
+bytag='\(Co-developed\|Reported\|Suggested\|Signed-off\|Acked\|Reviewed\|Tested\)-by:'
 reltag='Coverity issue:\|Bugzilla ID:\|Fixes:\|Cc:'
 
 failure=false
@@ -233,10 +233,11 @@ bad=$(for commit in $commits; do
 		SEQ[4] = "^$";
 		SEQ[5] = "Reported-by";
 		SEQ[6] = "Suggested-by";
-		SEQ[7] = "Signed-off-by";
-		SEQ[8] = "Acked-by";
-		SEQ[9] = "Reviewed-by";
-		SEQ[10] = "Tested-by";
+		SEQ[7] = "Co-developed-by";
+		SEQ[8] = "Signed-off-by";
+		SEQ[9] = "Acked-by";
+		SEQ[10] = "Reviewed-by";
+		SEQ[11] = "Tested-by";
 		latest = 0;
 		chronological = 0;
 	}
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH] devtools: add Co-developed-by to commit log check

[Thomas Monjalon]

12/03/2026 19:54, Stephen Hemminger:
> Add Co-developed-by to the recognized tag pattern and tag
> sequence order in check-git-log.sh.

Why using such tag? Signed-off-by is not enough?

Re: [PATCH] devtools: add Co-developed-by to commit log check

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 19:56:25 +0100
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:

> 12/03/2026 19:54, Stephen Hemminger:
> > Add Co-developed-by to the recognized tag pattern and tag
> > sequence order in check-git-log.sh.  
> 
> Why using such tag? Signed-off-by is not enough?
> 
> 

The tags were inherited from the kernel development process.

Signed-off-by is the DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin) attestation. 
It says "I certify that I have the right to submit this code under the project's license.

Co-developed-by explicitly marks someone as a co-author of the patch. 
Without it, there's only one author recorded in the git metadata.

I just wanted check-git-log.sh to be quiet if it was used.

The Co-developed-by is new, and probably came about because some people
need/want to have their contributions recorded in the git statistics.
Silly corporate overlords count contributions and it matters to them...

PS: If DPDK was exactly following the kernel process, every time a patch was merged into a sub-tree
it would get a Signed-off-by from a maintainer. Because the maintainer is validating that
the submitter had the correct rights.

Re: [PATCH] devtools: add Co-developed-by to commit log check

[Thomas Monjalon]

12/03/2026 21:10, Stephen Hemminger:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 19:56:25 +0100
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 
> > 12/03/2026 19:54, Stephen Hemminger:
> > > Add Co-developed-by to the recognized tag pattern and tag
> > > sequence order in check-git-log.sh.  
> > 
> > Why using such tag? Signed-off-by is not enough?
> 
> 
> The tags were inherited from the kernel development process.
> 
> Signed-off-by is the DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin) attestation. 
> It says "I certify that I have the right to submit this code under the project's license.
> 
> Co-developed-by explicitly marks someone as a co-author of the patch. 
> Without it, there's only one author recorded in the git metadata.
> 
> I just wanted check-git-log.sh to be quiet if it was used.
> 
> The Co-developed-by is new, and probably came about because some people
> need/want to have their contributions recorded in the git statistics.
> Silly corporate overlords count contributions and it matters to them...
> 
> PS: If DPDK was exactly following the kernel process, every time a patch was merged into a sub-tree
> it would get a Signed-off-by from a maintainer. Because the maintainer is validating that
> the submitter had the correct rights.

True, but in DPDK we use SoB as an author or co-author mark
and it is well in line with the DCO.

I know that we had some exceptions asking for Co-developed-by
because of a corporate ask, and I am on the side of being flexible.
But making it a part of our official process could make things confused
I think.

Re: [PATCH] devtools: add Co-developed-by to commit log check

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 21:27:01 +0100
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:

> 12/03/2026 21:10, Stephen Hemminger:
> > On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 19:56:25 +0100
> > Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> >   
> > > 12/03/2026 19:54, Stephen Hemminger:  
> > > > Add Co-developed-by to the recognized tag pattern and tag
> > > > sequence order in check-git-log.sh.    
> > > 
> > > Why using such tag? Signed-off-by is not enough?  
> > 
> > 
> > The tags were inherited from the kernel development process.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by is the DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin) attestation. 
> > It says "I certify that I have the right to submit this code under the project's license.
> > 
> > Co-developed-by explicitly marks someone as a co-author of the patch. 
> > Without it, there's only one author recorded in the git metadata.
> > 
> > I just wanted check-git-log.sh to be quiet if it was used.
> > 
> > The Co-developed-by is new, and probably came about because some people
> > need/want to have their contributions recorded in the git statistics.
> > Silly corporate overlords count contributions and it matters to them...
> > 
> > PS: If DPDK was exactly following the kernel process, every time a patch was merged into a sub-tree
> > it would get a Signed-off-by from a maintainer. Because the maintainer is validating that
> > the submitter had the correct rights.  
> 
> True, but in DPDK we use SoB as an author or co-author mark
> and it is well in line with the DCO.
> 
> I know that we had some exceptions asking for Co-developed-by
> because of a corporate ask, and I am on the side of being flexible.
> But making it a part of our official process could make things confused
> I think.

Agree. Want to allow developers to use Co-developed-by but not
suggest it or document it as required. Some people seem to want to use it.