Per Thomas' yet-to-be-merged "tip tree handbook"[1], Co-developed-by and
Signed-off-by must be paired together, i.e. the co-authors' SOB mustn't
be scattered willy-nilly, and the author's SOB must be the first SOB
*after* the last Co-developed-by/Signed-off-by pair. Provide an example
to eliminate any ambiguity.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <[email protected]>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]>
Cc: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Cc: Niklas Cassel <[email protected]>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index be7d1829c3af..f4b5c4850601 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -547,8 +547,13 @@ have been included in the discussion.
A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people
-work on a single patch. Note, this person also needs to have a Signed-off-by:
-line in the patch as well.
+work on a single patch. Note, Co-developed-by: must be accompanied by a
+Signed-off-by: of the co-author(s). All Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs
+must precede the Signed-off-by: of the original author.
+
+ Co-developed-by: Random Co-Author <[email protected]>
+ Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author <[email protected]>
+ Signed-off-by: Original Author <[email protected]>
13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:
--
2.21.0
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Per Thomas' yet-to-be-merged "tip tree handbook"[1], Co-developed-by and
> Signed-off-by must be paired together, i.e. the co-authors' SOB mustn't
> be scattered willy-nilly, and the author's SOB must be the first SOB
> *after* the last Co-developed-by/Signed-off-by pair. Provide an example
> to eliminate any ambiguity.
>
> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]>
> Cc: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> Cc: Niklas Cassel <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> index be7d1829c3af..f4b5c4850601 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> @@ -547,8 +547,13 @@ have been included in the discussion.
>
> A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
> along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people
> -work on a single patch. Note, this person also needs to have a Signed-off-by:
> -line in the patch as well.
> +work on a single patch. Note, Co-developed-by: must be accompanied by a
> +Signed-off-by: of the co-author(s). All Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs
> +must precede the Signed-off-by: of the original author.
> +
> + Co-developed-by: Random Co-Author <[email protected]>
> + Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author <[email protected]>
> + Signed-off-by: Original Author <[email protected]>
Seems to me this suggests Original Author is involved in the patch from
start to finish, and then gives Random Co-Author credit as well.
IME it's more common for the Original Author to write a patch, and
Random Co-Author to take over, finishing the job. Chronologically in
this case I'd put the sign-offs the other way round.
BR,
Jani.
>
>
> 13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:30:10PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Per Thomas' yet-to-be-merged "tip tree handbook"[1], Co-developed-by and
> > Signed-off-by must be paired together, i.e. the co-authors' SOB mustn't
> > be scattered willy-nilly, and the author's SOB must be the first SOB
> > *after* the last Co-developed-by/Signed-off-by pair. Provide an example
> > to eliminate any ambiguity.
> >
> > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> >
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Niklas Cassel <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 9 +++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> > index be7d1829c3af..f4b5c4850601 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> > @@ -547,8 +547,13 @@ have been included in the discussion.
> >
> > A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
> > along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people
> > -work on a single patch. Note, this person also needs to have a Signed-off-by:
> > -line in the patch as well.
> > +work on a single patch. Note, Co-developed-by: must be accompanied by a
> > +Signed-off-by: of the co-author(s). All Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs
> > +must precede the Signed-off-by: of the original author.
> > +
> > + Co-developed-by: Random Co-Author <[email protected]>
> > + Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author <[email protected]>
> > + Signed-off-by: Original Author <[email protected]>
>
> Seems to me this suggests Original Author is involved in the patch from
> start to finish, and then gives Random Co-Author credit as well.
>
> IME it's more common for the Original Author to write a patch, and
> Random Co-Author to take over, finishing the job. Chronologically in
> this case I'd put the sign-offs the other way round.
Hmm, and my experience is exclusively limited to contributing code to
someone else's patches. Rather than dictate exact ordering, what about
deferring to standard sign-off procedure?
E.g.:
A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people
work on a single patch. Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a
Signed-off-by: of the co-author(s). As per standard sign-off procedure, the
ordering of Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs should reflect the patch's
handling insofar as possible. Notably, the last Signed-off-by: must always be
that of the developer submitting the patch, regardless of whether they are the
original author or a co-author.
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:30:10PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Hmm, and my experience is exclusively limited to contributing code to
> someone else's patches. Rather than dictate exact ordering, what about
> deferring to standard sign-off procedure?
>
> E.g.:
>
> A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
> along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people
> work on a single patch. Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a
> Signed-off-by: of the co-author(s). As per standard sign-off procedure, the
> ordering of Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs should reflect the patch's
> handling insofar as possible. Notably, the last Signed-off-by: must always be
> that of the developer submitting the patch, regardless of whether they are the
> original author or a co-author.
Yes, that makes sense.
Thanks,
tglx
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:30:10PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> Hmm, and my experience is exclusively limited to contributing code to
>> someone else's patches. Rather than dictate exact ordering, what about
>> deferring to standard sign-off procedure?
>>
>> E.g.:
>>
>> A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
>> along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people
>> work on a single patch. Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a
>> Signed-off-by: of the co-author(s). As per standard sign-off procedure, the
>> ordering of Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs should reflect the patch's
>> handling insofar as possible. Notably, the last Signed-off-by: must always be
>> that of the developer submitting the patch, regardless of whether they are the
>> original author or a co-author.
>
> Yes, that makes sense.
Agreed.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center