Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] docs/traces Acked patches.

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 05:20:45PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 25.03.13 at 17:46, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> >>> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:48:33PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 25.03.13 at 16:37, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> > On 25/03/13 15:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>>>> On 25.03.13 at 15:41, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>> Please commit these patches. I can also put these on a git tree
> >> >>> (if you could create on for me on xenbits.org that is it) for a git 
> >> >>> pull.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The trace patches have been Acked-by George.
> >> >> You know what - I didn't apply them precisely because the ack
> >> >> came through only for patches 3 and 4. I just checked the
> >> >> xen-devel archives again, and that's the state of affairs right
> >> >> now too. Possibly the ack was sent to you without Cc-ing
> >> >> xen-devel, but that doesn't allow me to apply them.
> >> > 
> >> > Is that because I had already Ack-ed an earlier version of the same 
> >> > patches, as noted right above Konrad's S-o-B line?
> >> 
> >> I must have overlooked that, partly because I expect Acked-by
> >> to be below Signed-off-by (only Reported-by goes ahead of it in
> >> my opinion, to reflect work/event flow).
> > 
> > Oh, that would be a different workflow than with Linux, where
> > Acked-by has to be above the SOB.
> 
> I just checked current SubmittingPatches and didn't spot any
> such rule.

Ha! You expect this to be documented ! :-)
> 
> > The SOB of the last person posting it has to be at the bottom - as that
> > identifies who was the last person touching / sending from a git
> > tree.
> 
> Yes - workflow based. Looking at the 3.8.1 change log (arbitrarily
> picked) I see no strict ordering either, and to me it just makes
> sense to apply the workflow principle here too (Reported ->
> Signed-off [-> {Acked|Reviewed|Tested|Signed-off}, ...].

So digging through my mail archive I found this from Ingo:
(Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mce fix (ready for 3.6 merge window)

         We tend to use such an ordering of tags:

          Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>
          Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@xxxxxxx>
          Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx    # 3.4+

          I.e. Tested-by and Reported-by tags first (if any), then
          author SOB, then SOB chain (if any), then Reviewed-by
          and Acked-by, then stable tags, then Cc:s.

          (I fix this up silently for email space patches, for Git pulls
           I cannot do that.)

which would imply that the author's SOB is at the top - which is
what you pointed out. Perhaps I was thinking about this one and get the order
wrong. But I am pretty sure I saw somebody mention this the other
way around. Maybe it was Randy or Linus said it somewhere.

Anyhow, at this point I am just going to go with what you deem
the right way.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel