Hi, On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:26 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 21/04/2023 18:15, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:51 AM <richard.leitner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> From: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Add Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel compatible > >> string. > >> > >> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > nit: as I understand it, ordering of tags is usually supposed to be > > chronological. You signed off on this patch before Krzysztof acked it, > > so the SoB should be above. I'll fix that when applying. > > Some people agree with this... but b4 disagrees, so I would say the > tools should implement the right process and right decisions. We should > not be correcting the tools' output, unless the tools are not correct - > then fix the tools. Ah, interesting. I checked and as far as I could tell Richard had manually added the tag when sending v2, so I didn't assume it as a tool-added tag. I'm happy to let "b4" be the canonical thing that says what the order should be. OK, so I just tried this and I'm confused. I ran: b4 am -P_ 20230201-innolux-g070ace-v2-2-2371e251dd40@xxxxxxxxxxx ...and when I check the patch that b4 spits out my "Reviewed-by" tag is _after_ the "Signed-off-by" tag, just like I asked for. Just in case Acked-by was somehow different than Reviewed-by, I went back to the original version where you added the Acked-by: b4 am -P_ 20221118075856.401373-1-richard.leitner@xxxxxxxxx ...and, again, it matches the order that I thought was right. In other words, the patch file generated says: > Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> My "b4" is from Dec 1 of last year, so maybe something changed? Let's update! OK, I synced b4 and now I'm at v0.12.2 from Match 10 (MARIO day!). The behavior is unchanged. Did I get something wrong in the above?
