[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9c7f1643-2384-e458-23c1-8cd2326bcbf4@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:15:48 +0200
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
CC: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: allow tags between co-developed-by and their
sign-off
On 10/23/23 16:16, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> Hi Przemek,
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 12:29 PM Przemek Kitszel
> <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> Allow additional tags between Co-developed-by: and Signed-off-by:.
>>
>> Removing the "immediately" word from the doc is a great summary of the
>> change - there is no need for the two tags to be glued together, barring
>> ease of checkpatch implementation.
>>
>
> I think the currently suggested process of keeping Co-developed-by and
> Signed-off-by glued together is good, and I see no reason why this
> should be changed, nor do I see any drawbacks.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> The other tags, Reviewed-by, etc., can go anywhere just not between
> Co-developed-by and corresponding Signed-off-by. So, why do you have
> this need to put it exactly there rather than putting it anywhere
> else?
Multiple times during review it was odd for me to look at thw SoB of
submitter not being the last thing, and that's the result of the current
rule - co-dev authors put collected RB as last thing, only to keep their
CdB and SoB together.
>
> The commit message tells me what you are proposing, but there is no
> rationale in the commit message and that is put up for discussion here
> with the proposed change.
>
> I see many potential areas of work for the checkpatch script, but in
> my humble opinion, this really is not one of the rules that needs to
> be improved.
I started the other way, identified what was pissing me off, then tried
to fix that, despite of requirement of writing in perl.
>
> Lukas
>
> (...snipped the rest...)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists