Loops in the Signed-off-by process

Loops in the Signed-off-by process

[Dave Hansen]

With the recent ppc64 updates, a few patches in my tree didn't merge
very easily.  Being lazy, I asked one of the ppc64 developers to resync
them for me.  But, it happened to be someone other than the original
author that did this.

When they got sent to me again, the original author's (and my)
Signed-off-by: lines were gone, replaced by the nice fellow who merged
them.  This was certainly an artifact of how he generates patches and
obviously not malicious, but I still wonder what the "right" thing to do
is.

Do we show the logical flow?

Signed-off-by: original author
Signed-off-by: patch merger
Signed-off-by: tree maintainer

Or the actual flow of the patches, showing that they came back to the
tree maintainer twice?

Signed-off-by: original author
Signed-off-by: tree maintainer
Signed-off-by: patch merger
Signed-off-by: tree maintainer

Or, does it even really matter?

-- Dave

Re: Loops in the Signed-off-by process

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> Or, does it even really matter?

I don't think it matters that much, although I personally prefer to see 
the person who sent it to me ("touched it last") be last in the list. 
That's partly because of the fact that especially with bigger merges (ie 
with Andrew), I just do a search-and-replace, and replace any "signed off 
by sender" with "signed off by sender and me".

At the same time, I think it's pretty unnecessary (and possibly confusing)
to have somebody mentioned twice, so I'd actually prefer to see people
just move their (previous) sign-off to be last when they send it on.

Side note: I also like seeing "Acked-by:" or "Cc:" things just above the
sign-off lines, because it ends up being useful if there are any technical
issues with the patch - if a bug is found, it's very convenient to just
take all the sign-off people _and_ the other "involved" people and send
off a query to them all. Even if that "Acked-by:" has no other meaning
than as a mention of the fact that somebody else was involved in
discussions, even if they may not have been involved in actually writing
or passing off the ptch.

		Linus

Re: Loops in the Signed-off-by process

[Paul Jackson]

The protocol for adding an Acked-by line mystifies me a little.

If I submit a patch after having a good discussion of it with
Joe Blow, is it appropriate for me to add an Acked-by line for
Joe on my own, or should I get his consent (or know him well
enough to know he consents) or should I only so add if Joe
asks me to?

In other words, does the presence of such a line commit Joe
to any position on the patch, beyond perhaps not being too
annoyed if he gets queries on it.

-- 
                          I won't rest till it's the best ...
                          Programmer, Linux Scalability
                          Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373

Re: Loops in the Signed-off-by process

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Paul Jackson wrote:
>
> The protocol for adding an Acked-by line mystifies me a little.
> 
> If I submit a patch after having a good discussion of it with
> Joe Blow, is it appropriate for me to add an Acked-by line for
> Joe on my own, or should I get his consent (or know him well
> enough to know he consents) or should I only so add if Joe
> asks me to?

The "acked-by" thing doesn't mean anything, so you should just use your 
own judgement. 

> In other words, does the presence of such a line commit Joe
> to any position on the patch, beyond perhaps not being too
> annoyed if he gets queries on it.

Nope. The annoyance factor is the only factor to take into account.

		Linus

Re: Loops in the Signed-off-by process

[alan]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Paul Jackson wrote:
> >
> > The protocol for adding an Acked-by line mystifies me a little.
> > 
> > If I submit a patch after having a good discussion of it with
> > Joe Blow, is it appropriate for me to add an Acked-by line for
> > Joe on my own, or should I get his consent (or know him well
> > enough to know he consents) or should I only so add if Joe
> > asks me to?
> 
> The "acked-by" thing doesn't mean anything, so you should just use your 
> own judgement. 

Why am I expecting a new realty show called "Touched by a Torvalds"?

Sorry...  I have been stuck coding in a little boring town in Southern 
Oregon for the last three days.  (Kind of like Mountain View without all 
the excitement and with lots of trees.)

Re: Loops in the Signed-off-by process

[alan]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, alan wrote:
> > 
> > (Kind of like Mountain View without all the excitement
> 
> Oohh-keey.. "Mountain View without all the excitement".
> 
> ALL THE EXCITEMENT? MOUNTAIN VIEW?
> 
> Brain overload.

Like I said...

Imagine a large band around the place that says "Sanitized For Your 
Protection".

Re: Loops in the Signed-off-by process

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, alan wrote:
> 
> (Kind of like Mountain View without all the excitement

Oohh-keey.. "Mountain View without all the excitement".

ALL THE EXCITEMENT? MOUNTAIN VIEW?

Brain overload.

		Linus

Re: Loops in the Signed-off-by process

[Alan Cox]

On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 23:20, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, alan wrote:
> > 
> > (Kind of like Mountain View without all the excitement
> 
> Oohh-keey.. "Mountain View without all the excitement".
> 
> ALL THE EXCITEMENT? MOUNTAIN VIEW?
> 
> Brain overload.


Visit Canberra then you will understand

Re: Loops in the Signed-off-by process

[alan]

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 23:20, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, alan wrote:
> > > 
> > > (Kind of like Mountain View without all the excitement
> > 
> > Oohh-keey.. "Mountain View without all the excitement".
> > 
> > ALL THE EXCITEMENT? MOUNTAIN VIEW?
> > 
> > Brain overload.
> 
> 
> Visit Canberra then you will understand

Visit Grant's Pass Oregon and you will understand even more.

I much prefer Portland.

Re: Loops in the Signed-off-by process

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

> 
> Visit Canberra then you will understand

I respectfully disagree :) Canberra at least has some good pubs :)

Ben.