From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A96B87D04D for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:56:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728563AbfCVR4Q (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Mar 2019 13:56:16 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-f66.google.com ([209.85.167.66]:40148 "EHLO mail-lf1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727988AbfCVR4P (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Mar 2019 13:56:15 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f66.google.com with SMTP id u68so1981369lff.7 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:56:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=PAk363DYf+KC20/ypoh36Mrm+ABIuRbIAGe2gqauIc4=; b=CRL4VMFj6rGbr8do1XrgApDTQwILz0sEk3Hv+zHgUklKRo2LLjh3s2O2KawMQYnZKS 2JImjt6TBXu+Gp1sKnXCEab/KDkW/FTp8xQILsUVnYOam+/WKXQVx0SqIb5+O/lnlVGM uD7QX2dOp9sfQjw1WdGeEx6aBlb/uMqee7YJ/UijbM/qZbc2CGnUOnYJwCPZZHhhuBv3 D6kdEFWPp3d+7j+B5mbRJVwV1Ibioa47w+xUqrKK91fWj/9ABS6IR94ARG7BA8Ay9y+X fbTinwyXiSm9ArHiV9dBWZ1WREIpBLLhj/pAscblnP6uVFKX8+Pb1aJzzRLK9CyiXE+/ 6v0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=PAk363DYf+KC20/ypoh36Mrm+ABIuRbIAGe2gqauIc4=; b=M8KkmcFDeaCjd/qg5Ndt0kr53zPDbiVGCC7XzBZoGjvKiuaUGWN414rxFEz5TLtnHS W1zwdGbAogcbghsdv3TPIHJ9+tIHLhbjT1PXD4Vn3YWqJv8bpqa4w3J3gZSuyfUqY863 iB8ZcE5IVk0BvKmvhtcdL5PpWchnAwNPca/1WbwSbEt7lIYxg4O451CQ6l6YW3Y8lgZS LTkRU9XtudXjl0skTiFpPNxhJKPwDG3ISCnUFs8g9ygipF1HhsAq90RMn8MirWeoIgvY /l1ZKX2DBJba0JwPbGHDI6qB457hmbzMHPROKL6L74UJP1bTYQk9MQAoLPplKyBXVcFJ AUmg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXtO8NEq+03MkFhQHa+oOZcM78sIvIhImHViN5EKo0CBUZAxKom plMeKKJIXV+wsug42sLAp8OJLQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyVMVdiEfweKyLfreRyyWifvfBUmXeguKIjzlElC98sMzo12D3bgpYE9wE2zVF8cuMQVdKdHw== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5381:: with SMTP id g1mr5781238lfh.130.1553277372912; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from centauri.lan (h-229-118.A785.priv.bahnhof.se. [5.150.229.118]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m4sm1774402ljc.28.2019.03.22.10.56.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 18:56:10 +0100 From: Niklas Cassel To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Jonathan Corbet , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Tobin C . Harding" , Thomas Gleixner , Jani Nikula , Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz , Jonathan Cameron , Joe Perches , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements for Co-developed-by Message-ID: <20190322175610.GA25944@centauri.lan> References: <20190322155735.13954-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190322155735.13954-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 08:57:35AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > The documentation for Co-developed-by is a bit light on details, e.g. it > doesn't explicitly state that: > > - Multiple Co-developed-by tags are perfectly acceptable > - Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by must be paired together > - SOB ordering should still follow standard sign-off procedure > > Lack of explicit direction has resulted in developers taking a variety > of approaches, often lacking any intent whatsoever, e.g. scattering SOBs > willy-nilly, collecting them all at the end or the beginning, etc... > Tweak the wording to make it clear that multiple co-authors are allowed, > and document the expectation that standard sign-off procedures are to > be followed. > > The use of "original author" has also led to confusion as many patches > don't have just one "original" author, e.g. when multiple developers > are involved from the genesis of the patch. Remove all usage of > "original" and instead call out that Co-developed-by is simply a way to > provide attribution in addition to the From tag, i.e. neither tag is > intended to imply anything with regard to who did what. > > Provide examples to (hopefully) eliminate any ambiguity. > > Cc: Tobin C. Harding > Cc: Thomas Gleixner > Cc: Jani Nikula > Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz > Cc: Jonathan Cameron > Cc: Joe Perches > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman > Cc: Niklas Cassel > Cc: Jonathan Corbet > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > --- > > v1: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190320151140.32432-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com > v2: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190321184316.8525-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com > Rewrite the blurb to state standard sign-off procedure should be > followed as opposed to dictating the original author's SOB be last. > v3: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190321200103.9333-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com > Update a similar blurb in Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst > v4: Rework the blurbs to avoid use of the word "original" [Tobin] > > Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst | 10 +++-- > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 40 +++++++++++++++++--- > 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst > index 4213e580f273..d2da09372563 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst > @@ -216,10 +216,12 @@ The tags in common use are: > which can be found in :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst ` > Code without a proper signoff cannot be merged into the mainline. > > - - Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > - along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple > - people work on a single patch. Note, this person also needs to have a > - Signed-off-by: line in the patch as well. > + - Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by several developers; > + it is a used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author > + atrributed by the From: tag) when multiple people work on a single patch. fwiw s/atrributed/attributed/ > + Every Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a Signed-off-by: of > + the associated co-author. Details and examples can be found in > + :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst `. > > - Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a > maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > index be7d1829c3af..06db26b12495 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > @@ -545,10 +545,40 @@ person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the > patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties > have been included in the discussion. > > -A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > -along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people > -work on a single patch. Note, this person also needs to have a Signed-off-by: > -line in the patch as well. > +Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers; > +it is a used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author > +attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch. Since > +Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be immediately > +followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author. Standard sign-off > +procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags should reflect the > +chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether > +the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:. Notably, the last > +Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch. > + > +Note, the From: tag is optional when the From: author is also the person (and > +email) listed in the From: line of the email header. > + > +Example of a patch submitted by the From: author:: > + > + > + > + Co-developed-by: First Co-Author > + Signed-off-by: First Co-Author > + Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author > + Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author > + Signed-off-by: From Author > + > +Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author:: > + > + From: From Author > + > + > + > + Co-developed-by: Random Co-Author > + Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author > + Signed-off-by: From Author > + Co-developed-by: Submitting Co-Author > + Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author > > > 13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes: > @@ -696,7 +726,7 @@ A couple of example Subjects:: > The ``from`` line must be the very first line in the message body, > and has the form: > > - From: Original Author > + From: Patch Author > > The ``from`` line specifies who will be credited as the author of the > patch in the permanent changelog. If the ``from`` line is missing, > -- > 2.21.0 >