Reinette noticed that v14 of my resctrl/SNC patch series[1] did not adhere
to the tag order proscribed in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
Specifically my "Signed-off-by:" was now the last tag, instead of
appearing before the "Reviewed-by:" and "Tested-by" tags as it had in
v13.
A little digging showed that my tag had been moved to the end by "b4 am"
when I used it to pick up some additonal tags.
An e-mail discussion with Konstantin ensued to determine if this was
a bug. Konstantin said:
This is the intended behaviour, because b4 follows the chain-of-custody
procedure. If we encounter a Signed-off-by trailer matching the identity of
the user preparing the series, we move it to the bottom to indicate that the
chain-of-custody boundary has moved to include the code review trailers
received after the initial submission.
https://lore.kernel.org/tools/[email protected]/
Basically, the "Signed-off-by" trailer is special because it indicates that
everything above it is the responsibility of the person doing the sign-off. If
we kept your Signed-off-by in the original spot, then it wouldn't be clear who
collected and applied the trailers.
Question: Do the TIP maintainers agree with Konstantin's opinion that
the Signed-off-by: includes all the tags applied prior? If so, this
should be called out in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 04:47:26PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > Reinette noticed that v14 of my resctrl/SNC patch series[1] did not adhere
> > to the tag order proscribed in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
> > Specifically my "Signed-off-by:" was now the last tag, instead of
> > appearing before the "Reviewed-by:" and "Tested-by" tags as it had in
> > v13.
> >
> > A little digging showed that my tag had been moved to the end by "b4 am"
> > when I used it to pick up some additonal tags.
> >
> > An e-mail discussion with Konstantin ensued to determine if this was
> > a bug. Konstantin said:
> >
> > This is the intended behaviour, because b4 follows the chain-of-custody
> > procedure. If we encounter a Signed-off-by trailer matching the identity of
> > the user preparing the series, we move it to the bottom to indicate that the
> > chain-of-custody boundary has moved to include the code review trailers
> > received after the initial submission.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/tools/[email protected]/
> >
> > Basically, the "Signed-off-by" trailer is special because it indicates that
> > everything above it is the responsibility of the person doing the sign-off. If
> > we kept your Signed-off-by in the original spot, then it wouldn't be clear who
> > collected and applied the trailers.
>
> I can't find "chain of custody" anywhere in Documentation/process/, nor a
> specification or example of this ordering.
>
> Where did this b4 requirement come from?
Many discussions at the Maintainer Summit and on the tools/users lists. E.g.:
https://lore.kernel.org/tools/[email protected]/
The chain of custody approach is the only one that makes sense because it
allows keeping track of who applied which trailers. I know that most people
don't think about it twice, but it matters from the perspective of process.
If we need to put it into the official documentation, I'm happy to submit the
patch.
-K
On 1/30/24 14:34, Tony Luck wrote:
> Reinette noticed that v14 of my resctrl/SNC patch series[1] did not adhere
> to the tag order proscribed in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
> Specifically my "Signed-off-by:" was now the last tag, instead of
> appearing before the "Reviewed-by:" and "Tested-by" tags as it had in
> v13.
>
> A little digging showed that my tag had been moved to the end by "b4 am"
> when I used it to pick up some additonal tags.
>
> An e-mail discussion with Konstantin ensued to determine if this was
> a bug. Konstantin said:
>
> This is the intended behaviour, because b4 follows the chain-of-custody
> procedure. If we encounter a Signed-off-by trailer matching the identity of
> the user preparing the series, we move it to the bottom to indicate that the
> chain-of-custody boundary has moved to include the code review trailers
> received after the initial submission.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/tools/[email protected]/
>
> Basically, the "Signed-off-by" trailer is special because it indicates that
> everything above it is the responsibility of the person doing the sign-off. If
> we kept your Signed-off-by in the original spot, then it wouldn't be clear who
> collected and applied the trailers.
I can't find "chain of custody" anywhere in Documentation/process/, nor a
specification or example of this ordering.
Where did this b4 requirement come from?
> Question: Do the TIP maintainers agree with Konstantin's opinion that
> the Signed-off-by: includes all the tags applied prior? If so, this
> should be called out in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
>
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>
thanks.
--
#Randy
Hi,
On 1/30/24 17:57, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 04:47:26PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> Reinette noticed that v14 of my resctrl/SNC patch series[1] did not adhere
>>> to the tag order proscribed in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
>>> Specifically my "Signed-off-by:" was now the last tag, instead of
>>> appearing before the "Reviewed-by:" and "Tested-by" tags as it had in
>>> v13.
>>>
>>> A little digging showed that my tag had been moved to the end by "b4 am"
>>> when I used it to pick up some additonal tags.
>>>
>>> An e-mail discussion with Konstantin ensued to determine if this was
>>> a bug. Konstantin said:
>>>
>>> This is the intended behaviour, because b4 follows the chain-of-custody
>>> procedure. If we encounter a Signed-off-by trailer matching the identity of
>>> the user preparing the series, we move it to the bottom to indicate that the
>>> chain-of-custody boundary has moved to include the code review trailers
>>> received after the initial submission.
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/tools/[email protected]/
>>>
>>> Basically, the "Signed-off-by" trailer is special because it indicates that
>>> everything above it is the responsibility of the person doing the sign-off. If
>>> we kept your Signed-off-by in the original spot, then it wouldn't be clear who
>>> collected and applied the trailers.
>>
>> I can't find "chain of custody" anywhere in Documentation/process/, nor a
>> specification or example of this ordering.
>>
>> Where did this b4 requirement come from?
>
> Many discussions at the Maintainer Summit and on the tools/users lists. E.g.:
> https://lore.kernel.org/tools/[email protected]/
>
Not your problem, but decisions that are made at the Maintainer Summit are not
well-documented IMO. They don't get passed down to the rest of us.
Yes, I do look at Mr Corbet's summaries, but they lack sufficient detail for this.
> The chain of custody approach is the only one that makes sense because it
> allows keeping track of who applied which trailers. I know that most people
> don't think about it twice, but it matters from the perspective of process.
> If we need to put it into the official documentation, I'm happy to submit the
> patch.
I don't yet agree that the tag order change is needed, but yes, it should be
documented, so please do that.
thanks.
--
#Randy