On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:30:10PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> Hmm, and my experience is exclusively limited to contributing code to >> someone else's patches. Rather than dictate exact ordering, what about >> deferring to standard sign-off procedure? >> >> E.g.: >> >> A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer >> along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people >> work on a single patch. Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a >> Signed-off-by: of the co-author(s). As per standard sign-off procedure, the >> ordering of Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs should reflect the patch's >> handling insofar as possible. Notably, the last Signed-off-by: must always be >> that of the developer submitting the patch, regardless of whether they are the >> original author or a co-author. > > Yes, that makes sense. Agreed. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
