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 40765C5AD4C for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:14:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r6DH9-0005KJ-UV; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 12:14:03 -0500 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 1r6DH8-0005Il-Gr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 12:14:02 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r6DH0-0000yh-IY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 12:14:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1700759632; h=from:from:reply-to: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=2Rp3RLlBx36Ux1ClJIihBXNTXYXJvFupliIPd/luRRM=; b=ApFrqZfW3lovS9A7XnklesKpGpThJfKj4Kr0GZorGhulNYroROB+PTKLgJwvJERWjOWwpP utUQFEtqu7y4w4dLC/bNpwONBCDsMWdqSvd+cLSZOMxdT5zn7Xlb7cwSOyCNM6I/wtnm46 k0T+lKpuX1yzkDUooVVJmaaPHElzypE= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-452-E5XGCgnQNAi3QzxqOrtGtw-1; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 12:13:49 -0500 X-MC-Unique: E5XGCgnQNAi3QzxqOrtGtw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (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 mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D0CD88D4E3; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:13:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.42.28.44]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B574436E4; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:12:59 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:12:57 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Kevin Wolf Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Richard Henderson , Alexander Graf , Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , Paolo Bonzini , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Markus Armbruster , Phil =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , Stefan Hajnoczi , Thomas Huth , Gerd Hoffmann , Mark Cave-Ayland , Peter Maydell Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: introduce dedicated page about code provenance / sign-off Message-ID: References: <20231123114026.3589272-1-berrange@redhat.com> <20231123114026.3589272-2-berrange@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.10 (2023-03-25) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.1 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -21 X-Spam_score: -2.2 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.058, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 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: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 02:16:36PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 23.11.2023 um 12:40 hat Daniel P. Berrangé geschrieben: > > Currently we have a short paragraph saying that patches must include > > a Signed-off-by line, and merely link to the kernel documentation. > > The linked kernel docs have alot of content beyond the part about > > sign-off an thus is misleading/distracting to QEMU contributors. > > > > This introduces a dedicated 'code-provenance' page in QEMU talking > > about why we require sign-off, explaining the other tags we commonly > > use, and what to do in some edge cases. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé > > --- > > docs/devel/code-provenance.rst | 197 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > docs/devel/index-process.rst | 1 + > > docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst | 18 +-- > > 3 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > > > > diff --git a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000..b4591a2dec > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > > @@ -0,0 +1,197 @@ > > +.. _code-provenance: > > + > > +Code provenance > > +=============== > > + > > +Certifying patch submissions > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > + > > +The QEMU community **mandates** all contributors to certify provenance > > +of patch submissions they make to the project. To put it another way, > > +contributors must indicate that they are legally permitted to contribute > > +to the project. > > + > > +Certification is achieved with a low overhead by adding a single line > > +to the bottom of every git commit:: > > + > > + Signed-off-by: YOUR NAME > > + > > +This existence of this line asserts that the author of the patch is > > +contributing in accordance with the `Developer's Certificate of > > +Origin `__: > > + > > +.. _dco: > > + > > +:: > > + Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 > > + > > + By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: > > + > > + (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I > > + have the right to submit it under the open source license > > + indicated in the file; or > > + > > + (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best > > + of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source > > + license and I have the right under that license to submit that > > + work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part > > + by me, under the same open source license (unless I am > > + permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated > > + in the file; or > > + > > + (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other > > + person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified > > + it. > > + > > + (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution > > + are public and that a record of the contribution (including all > > + personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is > > + maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with > > + this project or the open source license(s) involved. > > + > > +It is generally expected that the name and email addresses used in one > > +of the ``Signed-off-by`` lines, matches that of the git commit ``Author`` > > +field. If the person sending the mail is also one of the patch authors, > > +it is further expected that the mail ``From:`` line name & address match > > +one of the ``Signed-off-by`` lines. > > Isn't the S-o-b expected even if the person sending the mail isn't one > of the patch authors, i.e. certifying (c) rather than (a) or (b) from > the DCO? This is essentially the same case as what a subsystem > maintainer does. Yes, you are right. > > +Other commit tags > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > + > > +While the ``Signed-off-by`` tag is mandatory, there are a number of > > +other tags that are commonly used during QEMU development > > + > > + * **``Reviewed-by``**: when a QEMU community member reviews a patch > > + on the mailing list, if they consider the patch acceptable, they > > + should send an email reply containing a ``Reviewed-by`` tag. > > + > > + NB: a subsystem maintainer sending a pull request would replace > > + their own ``Reviewed-by`` with another ``Signed-off-by`` > > As Philippe already mentioned, this isn't necessarily the case. It's a > common enough practice to add a S-o-b (which technically only certifies > the DCO) without removing the R-b (which tells that the content was > actually reviewed in detail - maintainers don't always do that if there > are already R-bs from trusted community members). Yes, will change. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|