From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48298) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UsZvv-0002NY-7J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:46:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UsZvr-0003QE-NJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:45:55 -0400 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:47565) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UsZvr-0003Pl-DW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:45:51 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e36.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:45:50 -0600 Received: from d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.107]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798063E40042 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:45:26 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r5SEjN6x075244 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:45:26 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r5SEjNZD011706 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:45:23 -0600 Message-ID: <51CDA182.3050002@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:45:22 -0400 From: "Michael R. Hines" MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1372210541-28092-1-git-send-email-mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1372210541-28092-16-git-send-email-mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <51CCC387.6000808@redhat.com> <51CD37F8.7070807@redhat.com> <51CD9053.1090106@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <51CD9053.1090106@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 15/15] rdma: account for the time spent in MIG_STATE_SETUP through QMP List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, quintela@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, owasserm@redhat.com, abali@us.ibm.com, mrhines@us.ibm.com, gokul@us.ibm.com, Paolo Bonzini , chegu_vinod@hp.com, knoel@redhat.com On 06/28/2013 09:32 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 06/28/2013 01:15 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 28/06/2013 00:58, Eric Blake ha scritto: >>>> Using the previous patches, we're now able to timestamp the >>>> SETUP state. Once we have this time, let the user know about it >>>> in the schema. >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela Signed-off-by: >>>> Michael R. Hines >>> Usually, Reviewed-by lines are listed _after_ S-o-b lines - >>> signature lines are typically chronological, but the patch has to >>> be signed before a review can have any weight at getting the patch >>> into a pull request :) >> Hmm, that's not how I understood it. The last line in the message >> should be S-o-b. If _I_ collect the Reviewed-bys when committing, I'll do >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael R. Hines >> Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela >> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > That's what I meant by signatures being chronological. The _first_ line > is Michael's s-o-b, since he wrote it; on any of Michael's respins where > he adds signatures collected during the review process (which will only > be reviewed-by or tested-by - here a review from Juan), those come next; > then when the maintainer incorporates the patch into a pull request, > further signatures are collected (any reviewed-by that were not > incorporated by Michael because no respin was required, followed by the > final s-o-b saying the maintainer modified the commit message as part of > incorporating into the pull request). > >> But since Michael is the one collecting the tags from previous >> submissions of the patch series, he's placing it right. > Having Michael's s-o-b last, after reviewed-by picked up from earlier > revisions, is not chronological. Maintainers add reviewed-by before > their own s-o-b, but only because their s-o-b is a secondary s-o-b; I > still don't see why the original author would add reviewed-by before > their (lone) s-o-b. > I don't mind prioritizing the reviewers. Everyone is putting in way more review time than they probably otherwise want to. =) Besides, the author's name is all over the email list - so it's obvious that the email sender will have an s-o-b. It's less obvious who reviewed the patch. - Michael