On Mon, 29 Jan 2018, Sean Paul wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > >> On 01/26/2018 01:48 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > >> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2018, Meghana Madhyastha wrote: > >> > > >> >> Add of_find_backlight, a helper function which is a generic version > >> >> of tinydrm_of_find_backlight that can be used by other drivers to avoid > >> >> repetition of code and simplify things. > >> >> > >> >> Acked-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> Reviewed-by: Noralf Trønnes <noralf@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> Reviewed-by: Sean Paul<seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Meghana Madhyastha <meghana.madhyastha@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > Nit: These should be in chronological order. > >> > >> Where does that tidbit of information come from? > >> I have never heard or read that. > > > > Not sure it is documented anywhere. It appeared to be the widely > > used, most sensible approach, so I adopted it a few years ago. > > > > This method provides us with information which would otherwise be > > absent; including description of the patch submission/acceptance path > > and an idea of who did what, when. > > > > For example: > > > > Original Author sign-off > > Original Co-author sign-off > > [Additional contributions: rebase, API changes, fix-ups] > > Re-worker's sign-off > > Tester's tested-by > > Reviewer's acked-by/reviewed-by > > Level-2 Maintainer sign-off > > Level-1 Maintainer sign-off > > > > Are you aware of a more functional/practical/useful method? > > Our tooling adds a Link: tag to the commit message pointing back to > mailing list archives. This provides more detailed patch provenance in I've been avoiding using tooling for Maintainership for a long time. I really do not want to go via that route. The simpler the better as far as I'm concerned (KISS [no, I'm not coming on to you!]). Also, a ML link only provides you with information on the final iteration of the submitted patch, and still does not provide information on who did what, when. > addition to reducing the burden on contributors to order tags It's not really much of a burden. Just keep putting the tags at the bottom when you collect them. Fortunately this is most developer's default pattern, so I do not have to bring this up much. > correctly (I had never heard of this as a requirement either). Check > out [1] if you're interested. > > Sean > > [1]- https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/dim.html > > > -- Lee Jones Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
