On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > I've seen the issue about the signed-off-by/reviewed-by/acked-by order > > come up before. I've always put my signed-off-by line last whenever > > proposing patches because it shows a clear order in who gathered those > > lines when submitting to -mm, for example. If I write > > > > Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > it is clear that I cc'd Mel on the initial proposal. If it is the other > > way around, for example, > > > > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton... > > > > then it indicates Andrew added the cc when merging into -mm. That's more > > relevant when such a line is acked-by or reviewed-by since it is now > > possible to determine who received such acknowledgement from the > > individual and is responsible for correctly relaying it in the patch > > submission. > > > > If it's done this way, it indicates that whoever is signing off the patch > > is responsible for everything above it. The type of line (signed-off-by, > > reviewed-by, acked-by) is enough of an indication about the development > > history of the patch, I believe, and it doesn't require specific ordering > > to communicate (and the first line having to be a signed-off-by line isn't > > really important, it doesn't replace the From: line). > > > > It also appears to be how both Linus merges his own patches with Cc's. > > ??? > Not sure what's confusing about this, sorry. You order your acked-by/reviewed-by/signed-off-by lines just like I have for years and I don't think it needs to be changed. It shows a clear history of who did what in the path from original developer -> maintainer -> Linus. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-numa" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
