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 4E6F8C47422 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:01:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rUPNs-0005GJ-Eb; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:01:00 -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 1rUPNq-0005G8-Br for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:00:58 -0500 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 1rUPNo-00033b-KB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:00:58 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1706526055; 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:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=ICqpDjlFoeKseO6nJMjb+3PWjTz6YYWwDU4kh1QrYJU=; b=O7dvNDf4hSPlVrdQCfCaKOnswZKbYvI9/BNEV7iio8xic2IfBpWQZtS9nQZVcefrZd0R9E khgi4tTodaCDtNVbNq7SSOgvmYStDwM55HpLNWyTdzo9hSYjODlGeVO/elb6inod8JfiOO GJ78l9TJOFJ/jwa99hPWfuuVyflIzmI= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-681-ctXAcI5cOgeS-IUc4EC7dQ-1; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:00:52 -0500 X-MC-Unique: ctXAcI5cOgeS-IUc4EC7dQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.2]) (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 8FD6829AA390; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.42.28.51]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93BF840C9444; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:00:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:00:46 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Peter Maydell Cc: Samuel Tardieu , Zhao Liu , 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 , Kevin Wolf , Gerd Hoffmann , Mark Cave-Ayland , qemu-devel@nongnu.org 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> <8734uglbe5.fsf@rfc1149.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.2 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -45 X-Spam_score: -4.6 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-2.485, 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_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:41:38AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 09:47, Samuel Tardieu wrote: > > However, this is not what QEMU has been using as far as I can see, > > as S-o-b tend to stay in their original positions. I even opened > > an issue on b4 a few weeks ago because of this > > , and I reverted to using > > git-publish. But if this is ok to use an arbitrary order for > > non-S-o-b headers, I can get back to b4. > > I think QEMU doesn't have a specific existing practice here. > What you see is largely the result of people using whatever > tooling they have and accepting the ordering it gives them. > So I don't think you should stop using b4 just because > the ordering it happens to produce isn't the same as > somebody else's tooling. > > I think trying to impose some subtle distinction of meaning > on the ordering of tags is not going to work, because there > are going to be too many cases where people don't adhere > to the ordering distinction because they don't know about > it or don't understand it. > > As Daniel says, as long as the Signed-off-by tags are > in basically the right order for developer vs maintainer > that's the only strong ordering constraint we have. To think of it another way.... Signed-off-by is the only tag which has defined legal meaning in terms of asserting that the people involved have permission to contribute. All the other tags (Reviewed/Tested/etc) are merely a historical record of the development process, and have no legal implications. This makes Signed-off-by the important one, and the others all in the "nice to have" category. 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 :|