From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B41CC28B2E for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 10:11:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tsJ3S-0005XG-Nu; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 06:11:14 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tsJ3Q-0005VX-5l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 06:11:12 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tsJ3L-0006Pd-92 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 06:11:11 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1741774264; 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=fsLoqxuYpvPWnVCJ/PNV5zMKUzyxQgiCMruqWlq97LI=; b=a7eQ38MbjrFxDRo8UXtjWNZPcWTPD6KHJCtXPWNJ6LviMXawiY7wSgEmvSzf2FL+QnyZkR w+ibfvX5aATBVJJAU4CO/q6Re7xCrCbKpw+QHWS63sywZQujRDus6T3qHhMf82spTX9/Ye 3E/l2H5Y0K4kY/VpyGhaYFjnHzQVkdk= Received: from mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-113--X4k600bOXeowWSYYSefzw-1; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 06:11:01 -0400 X-MC-Unique: -X4k600bOXeowWSYYSefzw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: -X4k600bOXeowWSYYSefzw_1741774260 Received: from mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C79A1955BC1; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 10:10:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (unknown [10.22.74.4]) by mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C5F21828A98; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 10:10:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 494A521E675E; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:10:49 +0100 (CET) From: Markus Armbruster To: Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= Cc: Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Akihiko Odaki , Bibo Mao , Peter Maydell , Richard Henderson , Yi Liu , =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Mathieu--Drif , Zhenzhong Duan Subject: Re: Giving your own patches your Reviewed-by In-Reply-To: <9329310c-bfad-44aa-a53a-87c1f39668a2@linaro.org> ("Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9=22's?= message of "Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:03:04 +0100") References: <878qpamvk6.fsf@pond.sub.org> <9329310c-bfad-44aa-a53a-87c1f39668a2@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:10:49 +0100 Message-ID: <87a59qlfti.fsf@pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.93 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 writes: > Hi Markus, > (Cc'ing Yi, Cl=C3=A9ment and Zhenzhong for commit eda4c9b5b3c) > > On 12/3/25 10:45, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> I stumbled over commits that carry the author's Reviewed-by. >>=20 >> There may be cases where the recorded author isn't the lone author, and >> the recorded author did some meaningful review of the patch's parts that >> are not theirs. Mind that we do need all authors to provide their >> Signed-off-by. >>=20 >> When the only Signed-off-by is from the recorded author, and there's >> also their Reviewed-by, the Reviewed-by is almost certainly bogus. >>=20 >> Now, accidents happen, no big deal, etc., etc. I post this to hopefully >> help reduce the accident rate :) >>=20 >> Here's my quick & sloppy search for potentially problematic uses of >> Reviewed-by: >>=20 >> $ git-log --since 'two years ago' | awk -F: '/^commit / { commit=3D$0 } = /^Author: / { guy=3D$2 } /^ Reviewed-by: / { if ($2 =3D=3D guy) { print = commit; print guy } }' > > > Explaining some commits where I'm mentioned: [...] > Is this workflow making sense and accepted? Otherwise what should > we change? Maybe clarify along with the tags; or including all > Message-Id could make this easier to track? The workflow is good enough as is if you ask me. Note that the patches you quoted all have more than one Signed-off-by. My quick & sloppy search neglects to filter these out :)