linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: allow tags between co-developed-by and their sign-off

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: <887636af-6be7-f418-bfa4-d85501f2f40c@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:15:47 +0200
From:   Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC:     Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        <workflows@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        "Mateusz Polchlopek" <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: allow tags between co-developed-by and their
 sign-off

On 10/23/23 16:02, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> +Mateusz
> 
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
>> Additional tags between Co-developed-by and corresponding Signed-off-by
>> could include Reviewed-by tags collected by Submitter, which is also
>> a Co-developer, but should sign-off at the very end of tags provided by
>> the Submitter.
> 
> ...
> 
>> Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com> has reported this to me.
> 
> Heh, there's a tag for that...
> 
>    Reported-by: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>
> 
> And it's usually a good idea to Cc the reporter in case there are questions they
> can help answer.

Heh ;) then I would get a checkpatch warning for not providing Link: to
the report, somehow I wanted to avoid those for checkpatch contrib :)

> 
>> @@ -509,16 +509,18 @@ Example of a patch submitted by the From: author::
>>   	Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@...uthor.example.org>
>>   	Signed-off-by: From Author <from@...hor.example.org>
>>   
>> -Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author::
>> +Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author, who also collected
>> +a Reviewed-by: tag posted for earlier version::
>>   
>>   	From: From Author <from@...hor.example.org>
>>   
>>   	<changelog>
>>   
>>   	Co-developed-by: Random Co-Author <random@...uthor.example.org>
>>   	Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author <random@...uthor.example.org>
>>   	Signed-off-by: From Author <from@...hor.example.org>
>>   	Co-developed-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@...uthor.example.org>
>> +	Reviewed-by: Some Reviewer <srev@...ther.example.org>
>>   	Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@...uthor.example.org>
> 
> This is silly.  Allowing tags in-between Co-developed-by with Signed-off-by
> unnecessarily complicates things, e.g. people already miss/forget the rule about
> tightly coupling Co-developed-by with Signed-off-by.

Meh, I see that as a pure process simplification with proposed rule
being almost the same as the current one, thus as easy to remember or
forget.

> 
> And if we're being super pedantic about chronological history, arguably the
> Reviewed-by should come before the Co-developed-by as adding the Reviewed-by is
> a (trivial) modification to the patch that was done by the submitter.

Tagging patches is not considered co-development by most people.