linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off 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: <20190321192341.GG6519@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:23:41 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        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 v2] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements for
 Co-developed-by

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:43:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> The documentation for Co-developed-by is a bit light on details, e.g. it
> doesn't explicitly state that:
> 
>   - Multiple Co-developed-by tags are perfectly acceptable
>   - Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by must be paired together
>   - SOB ordering should still follow standard sign-off procedure
> 
> Lack of explicit direciton has resulted in developers taking a variety
> of approaches, often lacking any intent whatsoever, e.g. scattering SOBs
> willy-nilly, collecting them all at the end or the beginning, etc...
> 
> Tweak the wording to make it clear that multiple co-authors are allowed,
> and document the expectation that standard sign-off procedures are to
> be followed.  Provide examples to (hopefully) eliminate any ambiguity.
> 
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
> 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>
> ---
> 
> v1: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190320151140.32432-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com
> v2: Rewrite the blurb to state standard sign-off procedure should be
>     followed as opposed to dictating the original author's SOB be last.
> 
>  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 24 +++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> index be7d1829c3af..a7a9da68a384 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> @@ -545,10 +545,28 @@ person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the
>  patch.  This tag documents that potentially interested parties
>  have been included in the discussion.
>  
> -A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
> +A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by other developer(s)
>  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.  Every Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by
> +a Signed-off-by: of the co-author.  Standard sign-off procedure applies, i.e.
> +the ordering of Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs should reflect the
> +chronological history of the patch 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.
> +
> +Example of a patch with multiple co-authors, submitted by the original author::
> +
> +	Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@...uthor.example.org>
> +	Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@...uthor.example.org>
> +	Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@...uthor.example.org>
> +	Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@...uthor.example.org>
> +	Signed-off-by: Original Author <original@...hor.example.org>
> +
> +Example of a patch submitted by a co-author::
> +
> +	Signed-off-by: Original Author <original@...hor.example.org>
> +	Co-developed-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@...uthor.example.org>
> +	Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@...uthor.example.org>
>  
>  
>  13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:
> -- 

Belatedly discovered that Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst has a nearly
identical section on Co-developed-by.  I'll send a v3 to tweak that
verbiage as well and add a link to submitting-patches.rst.