On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 11:42 AM Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 6/4/2021 12:35 PM, Jeff King wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 08:48:21AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>> + Acked-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> I believe the sign-off should always be the last thing in > >>> the message. Perhaps Junio is willing to fix this without a > >>> re-roll? > >> > >> Interesting, this is the first I've ever heard of such a requirement, > >> and I've submitted patches this way numerous times and have seen > >> others do it. A quick search through git.git history says there are > >> 5133 commits that place such trailers before the author's > >> Signed-off-by, and 1175 that place them after. While the former is > >> clearly more common, and some of the latter could have been Junio > >> adding trailers while applying the patches, there still seem like > >> plenty of counter-examples suggesting that there is no rule here. > > > > I don't think there's a hard rule here. The usual advice (which I also > > didn't find documented from a quick grep, but hopefully is kind of > > intuitive) is that trailers should be chronological. > > > > So if you picked up a patch from person X who signed off, then you > > modified and signed off the result, then Junio signed off after > > applying, we'd expect that chain of custody to be represented by reading > > top to bottom. And that's what happens if you use "am -s", "commit -s", > > etc. > > > > Whether "Acked-by" happens after the author signs off or not is > > debatable. Obviously it happens after the version of the patch that is > > sent out. But if you re-send with an Acked-by, is the signoff your one > > from before that happened first, or a new one that happened as you sent > > out the patch? Perhaps a question for the philosophers. ;) > > I guess I was just interpreting that the "Acked-by" was part of > the content you created, and hence it should be covered by the > sign-off. I can imagine that if Junio added it, then it would be > after your sign-off but before his. > > > Anyway, I think it is perfectly fine either way (as your numbers > > indicate). > > I agree. I didn't mean to make a big deal of it. Sorry, it was me who made a big deal out of it. I was just really surprised that I had missed another rule (you correctly caught one I did miss on a recent other series I submitted), and so I thought it was prudent to go digging and see how I had _also_ missed this rule and refresh myself on the rules in general. And once I did that, although I felt this one probably didn't qualify, I thought it was useful to share what I found and highlight what I thought needed clarification if I was wrong.
