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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903211537340.1784@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:37:57 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        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 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