From: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
tools@linux.kernel.org, users@linux.kernel.org
Subject: DCO chain of custody revisited (was Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] mfd: qcom-pm8xxx: drop unused PM8018 compatible)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 12:58:42 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6858acf3-eb90-41aa-b714-a2ceb6afe9db@linaro.org>
Hijacking this thread for greater good.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 04:35:38PM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 31/10/2022 16:32, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> >
> > > The PM8018 compatible is always used with PM8921 fallback, so PM8018
> > > compatible can be safely removed from device ID table
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
> >
> > Tags should appear chronologically.
>
> Indeed, they were added by b4, I'll report this.
My trouble is that there are seemingly as many opinions about the order of
trailers as there are subsystem maintainers. The last time we had a long
discussion about this on the users list I got a strong message that what
matters most is the chain of custody, and the Signed-off-by trailer indicates
the chain of custody boundary.
In the scenario below, the chain consists of 3 people:
| Suggested-by: Reporter 1 <...>
| Signed-off-by: Developer 1 <...> -- initial DCO boundary
| Reviewed-by: Reviewer 1 <...>
| Tested-by: Tester 1 <...>
| Signed-off-by: Submaintainer 1 <...> -- intermediate DCO boundary
| Acked-by: Submaintainer 2 <...>
| Signed-off-by: Maintainer 1 <...> -- final DCO boundary
In terms of DCO, this makes the following claims:
Developer 1:
- I am responsible for this change
- It was suggested by Reporter 1
Submaintainer 1:
- I am signing off on this change
- I have collected the trailers from Reviewer 1 and Tester 1
Maintainer 1:
- I am signing off on this change
- I have collected the trailer from Submaintainer 2
In the current case, and using this principle, the following order is correct:
| Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
| Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
Because the Reviewerd-by trailer was sent to the v2 of the series and was
collected by Neil, so Neil is the person who is the DCO signatory of that
chain of custody in the v4 of the series.
I assume that in the final commit Lee rearranged the tags in the following
order:
| Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
| Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
| Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
This would indicate that it's *Lee* who is claiming responsibility for
collecting the Reviewed-by tag from Krzysztof, because it is in his chain of
custody. However, this is not the case -- it was Neil who collected the tag,
and therefore the "more correct" order should be:
| Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
| Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
| Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
If my reasoning is incorrect, then I need to go back to the drawing board.
-K
next parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-31 16:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20220928-mdm9615-dt-schema-fixes-v4-0-dac2dfaac703@linaro.org>
[not found] ` <20220928-mdm9615-dt-schema-fixes-v4-8-dac2dfaac703@linaro.org>
[not found] ` <Y1/qnCyav/S35mRo@google.com>
[not found] ` <6858acf3-eb90-41aa-b714-a2ceb6afe9db@linaro.org>
2022-10-31 16:58 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev [this message]
2022-10-31 17:10 ` DCO chain of custody revisited (was Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] mfd: qcom-pm8xxx: drop unused PM8018 compatible) James Bottomley
2022-10-31 17:23 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2022-10-31 17:33 ` James Bottomley
2022-10-31 17:43 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2022-10-31 21:29 ` Theodore Ts'o
2022-10-31 17:33 ` Alex Elder
2022-10-31 20:16 ` Willy Tarreau
2022-11-02 19:53 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-10-31 17:37 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local \
--to=konstantin@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org \
--cc=lee@kernel.org \
--cc=neil.armstrong@linaro.org \
--cc=tools@linux.kernel.org \
--cc=users@linux.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).