On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:43:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > The documentation for Co-developed-by is a bit light on details, e.g. it > doesn't explicitly state that: > > - Multiple Co-developed-by tags are perfectly acceptable > - Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by must be paired together > - SOB ordering should still follow standard sign-off procedure > > Lack of explicit direciton has resulted in developers taking a variety > of approaches, often lacking any intent whatsoever, e.g. scattering SOBs > willy-nilly, collecting them all at the end or the beginning, etc... > > Tweak the wording to make it clear that multiple co-authors are allowed, > and document the expectation that standard sign-off procedures are to > be followed. Provide examples to (hopefully) eliminate any ambiguity. > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > > v1: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190320151140.32432-1-sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx > v2: Rewrite the blurb to state standard sign-off procedure should be > followed as opposed to dictating the original author's SOB be last. > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 24 +++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > index be7d1829c3af..a7a9da68a384 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > @@ -545,10 +545,28 @@ person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the > patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties > have been included in the discussion. > > -A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > +A Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by other developer(s) > along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people > -work on a single patch. Note, this person also needs to have a Signed-off-by: > -line in the patch as well. > +work on a single patch. Every Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by > +a Signed-off-by: of the co-author. Standard sign-off procedure applies, i.e. > +the ordering of Co-developed-by:/Signed-off-by: pairs should reflect the > +chronological history of the patch 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. > + > +Example of a patch with multiple co-authors, submitted by the original author:: > + > + Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > + Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > + Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > + Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > + Signed-off-by: Original Author <original@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > + > +Example of a patch submitted by a co-author:: > + > + Signed-off-by: Original Author <original@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > + Co-developed-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > + Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > 13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes: > -- Belatedly discovered that Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst has a nearly identical section on Co-developed-by. I'll send a v3 to tweak that verbiage as well and add a link to submitting-patches.rst.
