+Cc: Jonathan (some documentation clarification might be needed) On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:58 AM Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 10:38:37PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 9:40 PM Uwe Kleine-König > > <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 07:01:15PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 6:54 PM Ilpo Järvinen > > > > <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 3:55 PM Ilpo Järvinen > > > > > > <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > But more importantly I do not see the reason for the Acked-by tag when > > > > > > SoB of the same person is present. > > > > > > > > > > I just repeated what Uwe gave me. Maybe he didn't notice he was already > > > > > there as SoB. > > > > > > > > > > This situation is anyway a bit more complex than usual. The line I took > > > > > was part of Uwe's much larger patch initially (which was fully reverted) > > > > > so his SoB was carried over to preserve the authorship. As I made a > > > > > non-trivial modification to his original patch by removing almost all of > > > > > it, I added my SoB too. Given this situation, I kind of thought he Acked > > > > > (approved) the post-modification version of it. > > > > > > > > I believe you haven't preserved the authorship that way (since From > > > > line is different), but since you have done non-trivial changes and > > > > Uwe is okay with them, the straightforward tag chain would be (with > > > > your authorship implied): > > > > Co-developed-by: Uwe > > > > SoB: Uwe > > > > SoB: yours > > > > > > I don't care much, but IMHO the initial set of tags made sense to me. > > > > > It > > > has my S-o-b because the change is (somewhat) taken from me and it has > > > my ack because the modification looked good to me. > > > > According to > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by > > the SoB already implies that you developed that, but Ack if not. It > > also clarifies Co-developed-by for cases like this. > > That's unintuitive (and wrong) in my opinion. I have the opposite opinion. > For me, Acked-by is a > confirmation of the respective person, that the patch in question is ok. > If I take a hunk of a random reverted patch and add the S-o-b of the big > patch's author, can I really assume the original author "acks" the > result? I would expect that in most cases they don't. (And if they do, > there is no way to record it, because the usual way of adding an Ack is > blocked as there is already a S-o-b?) It's very logical to me. If you allowed (by not NAKing) the other developer to use your SoB you imply Ack for every change they made. Otherwise you need explicitly ask for withdrawal of your SoB. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
