From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs/traces Acked patches. Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:04:00 -0400 Message-ID: <20130325200400.GB652@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <1364222482-14697-1-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> <515077C402000078000C830A@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <51506F37.70600@eu.citrix.com> <51507FE102000078000C8398@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20130325164614.GA25268@phenom.dumpdata.com> <5150957D02000078000C846A@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5150957D02000078000C846A@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: George Dunlap , Ian Jackson , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 05:20:45PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 25.03.13 at 17:46, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:48:33PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 25.03.13 at 16:37, George Dunlap wrote: > >> > On 25/03/13 15:13, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>>>> On 25.03.13 at 15:41, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >> >>> Please commit these patches. I can also put these on a git tree > >> >>> (if you could create on for me on xenbits.org that is it) for a git pull. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> The trace patches have been Acked-by George. > >> >> You know what - I didn't apply them precisely because the ack > >> >> came through only for patches 3 and 4. I just checked the > >> >> xen-devel archives again, and that's the state of affairs right > >> >> now too. Possibly the ack was sent to you without Cc-ing > >> >> xen-devel, but that doesn't allow me to apply them. > >> > > >> > Is that because I had already Ack-ed an earlier version of the same > >> > patches, as noted right above Konrad's S-o-B line? > >> > >> I must have overlooked that, partly because I expect Acked-by > >> to be below Signed-off-by (only Reported-by goes ahead of it in > >> my opinion, to reflect work/event flow). > > > > Oh, that would be a different workflow than with Linux, where > > Acked-by has to be above the SOB. > > I just checked current SubmittingPatches and didn't spot any > such rule. Ha! You expect this to be documented ! :-) > > > The SOB of the last person posting it has to be at the bottom - as that > > identifies who was the last person touching / sending from a git > > tree. > > Yes - workflow based. Looking at the 3.8.1 change log (arbitrarily > picked) I see no strict ordering either, and to me it just makes > sense to apply the workflow principle here too (Reported -> > Signed-off [-> {Acked|Reviewed|Tested|Signed-off}, ...]. So digging through my mail archive I found this from Ingo: (Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mce fix (ready for 3.6 merge window) We tend to use such an ordering of tags: Signed-off-by: Tony Luck Acked-by: Borislav Petkov Cc: stable@kernel.org # 3.4+ I.e. Tested-by and Reported-by tags first (if any), then author SOB, then SOB chain (if any), then Reviewed-by and Acked-by, then stable tags, then Cc:s. (I fix this up silently for email space patches, for Git pulls I cannot do that.) which would imply that the author's SOB is at the top - which is what you pointed out. Perhaps I was thinking about this one and get the order wrong. But I am pretty sure I saw somebody mention this the other way around. Maybe it was Randy or Linus said it somewhere. Anyhow, at this point I am just going to go with what you deem the right way.