linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: Explicitly state ordering requirements for Co-developed-by

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87lg18e4nx.fsf@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:30:10 +0200
From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Explicitly state ordering requirements for Co-developed-by

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> 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/20181107171149.165693799@linutronix.de
>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org>
> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
> ---
>  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 <random@...uthor.example.org>
> +	Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author <random@...uthor.example.org>
> +	Signed-off-by: Original Author <original@...hor.example.org>

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