+Mateusz On Mon, Oct 23, 2023, Przemek Kitszel wrote: > 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. ... > Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@xxxxxxxxx> has reported this to me. Heh, there's a tag for that... Reported-by: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@xxxxxxxxx> And it's usually a good idea to Cc the reporter in case there are questions they can help answer. > @@ -509,16 +509,18 @@ Example of a patch submitted by the From: author:: > Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: From Author <from@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > -Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author:: > +Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author, who also collected > +a Reviewed-by: tag posted for earlier version:: > > From: From Author <from@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > <changelog> > > Co-developed-by: Random Co-Author <random@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author <random@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: From Author <from@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Co-developed-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > + Reviewed-by: Some Reviewer <srev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> This is silly. Allowing tags in-between Co-developed-by with Signed-off-by unnecessarily complicates things, e.g. people already miss/forget the rule about tightly coupling Co-developed-by with Signed-off-by. And if we're being super pedantic about chronological history, arguably the Reviewed-by should come before the Co-developed-by as adding the Reviewed-by is a (trivial) modification to the patch that was done by the submitter.
