From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-178.mta1.migadu.com (out-178.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.178]) (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 29A3E35B632 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 05:48:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.178 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785217718; cv=none; b=px78WGqjmODze8eEQkMw6j4g77705Tuhcx1Xc+JS4iB7aIrFXPFMuyIvvSz9PLa52bSJ5gpfNGsx6ArQLNZsxzsMWmFy4yj/C/ih8PxOjcEYzFRdy9dzAyIPRQqn10IPUe/UMMQtCvwMRb0FsHzBPynPhpM3Omnn6OWHxGdl5uc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785217718; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tyAmUAZfOCJ1m4CzbrPXkOZ7J/hv4sI+SZEy9luhysw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=krfq6yxXOpwQbISb6EuNZqH6bzR6QKJtUlUBjCliVkBiYFdxXjm4d3N4IS7886RpE4Yr3FoFhehtMWLdEl24vOYBPMr+S5ZPw+8qKmkqCfEcT5bP9sWmrHf7m065ATs7YP+WXtSoaB5vhdFHqUvEJz+gmynW2UrpxINKPqp6Kd0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=wyuan.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wyuan.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wyuan.org header.i=@wyuan.org header.b=h5FsTysB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.178 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=wyuan.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wyuan.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wyuan.org header.i=@wyuan.org header.b="h5FsTysB" Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 13:48:09 +0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wyuan.org; s=key1; t=1785217703; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7Yu4ZjvPLIKluIkVwr+ZO7GVBWFFGdggu8YAGnCkbIs=; b=h5FsTysBCISbrhTBZ9n5Zx2+/cu6QlXQnoeaezbgoSDsyeigex1nkY04/HGUl+ewt1WNTs 9JKTyRAJChuCo0i5yzf12AMGtB465Xi0kt/ZSSJWBdqDttGovqMSIdWVlXgkSiHPzMOYKO YwNIkseS+7wHH9qTx9Rka6hIZ3kDm1c5WweTfjQb3AFUU+3vghu0JTPsn/AHZRnm9gdfNd wp5YbvIOFXgdyvFpSi59ohrJEdquTzox+FNMtt2g3stz0D94YW5RCL8GYuebmg3QsiCA3+ jfQmrXQ/f/1DKF4SLp4nX+6ucg7UNGd6hHMW7JcyVq7nosTiqbfdVjZR+KiVrg== X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Weijie Yuan To: Randy Dunlap Cc: =?utf-8?B?5bKz56eJ5Z2k?= , mchehab@kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, corbet@lwn.net, shiju.jose@huawei.com, jacopo.mondi@ideasonboard.com, laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com, hverkuil+cisco@kernel.org, sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Documentation: fix "should be use" grammar in ABI README Message-ID: References: <20260728041213.52820-1-yuebingkun@kylinos.cn> <20260728041213.52820-2-yuebingkun@kylinos.cn> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 09:31:35PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: 岳秉坤 > >> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap > > > > Usually, your "Signed-off-by" should be the last trailer. > > Hm, I disagree. The -by: lines are somewhat in chronological order, so this > looks fine to me. > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst says: > """ > 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. > """ > > Yes, this doesn't address Acked-by: or Reviewed-by: lines, but in my experience, > chronological order applies to all of them. Ah, I remember this part. But I tend to believe that this description is only relevant to the issue of the order of Co-authored-by and Signed-off-by, if I were the newcomer reading this for the first time. (In fact, I actually am a newcomer compared with you ;-)) That is to say, when dealing with multiple authors, we suggest using trailers to represent the sequence of authors in chronological order. Then, this will facilitate subsequent readers to understand the development history of the patch through the order of the trailers.(?) And, aren't these subsequent examples merely confining the discussion to these two trailers? --- 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 --- Besides the submitting-patches file, It seems to me that the probability of "Signed-off-by" appearing on the last line is much higher than in other cases. Is this a usual practice? It seems that everyone tacitly agreed to write "Acked-by" and "Reviewed-by" at the top, even though they occurred after "Sob". But of course, you have much more experience in this area, so my limited observations may not be very representative. Thanks! ps. The Git project explicitly stipulates "Place this `Signed-off-by:` trailer at the end". So at first, I wasn't quite sure about it.