Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Clarify check-in requirements for mixed-author patches

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi George,

On 08/12/2022 10:49, George Dunlap wrote:
> From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> There was a question raised recently about the requriements for
Typo: s/requriements/requirements/

> checking in a patch which was originally written by one maintainer,
> then picked up and modified by a second maintainer, and which they now both
> agree should be checked in.
>
> It was proposed that in that case, the following set of tags would suffice:
>
>     Signed-off-by: First Author <...>
>     Signed-off-by: Second Author <...>
>     Reviewed-by: First Author <...>
>
> The rationale was as follows:
>
> 1. The patch will be a mix of code, whose copyright is owned by the
> various authors (or the companies they work for).  It's important to
> keep this information around in the event, for instance, of a license
> change or something else requiring knowledge of the copyright owner.
>
> 2. The Signed-off-by of the Second Author approves not only their own
> code, but First Author's code; the Reviewed-by of the First Author
> approves not only their own code, but the Second Author's code.  Thus
> all the code has been approved by a maintainer, as well as someone who
> was not the author.
>
> In support of this, several arguments were put forward:
>
> * We shouldn't make it harder for maintainers to get their code in
>    than for non-maintiners
Typo: s/non-maintiners/maintainers/

> * The system we set up should not add pointless bureaucracy; nor
>    discourage collaboration; nor encourage contributors to get around
>    the rules by dropping important information.  (For instance, by
>    removing the first SoB, so that the patch appears to have been
>    written entirely by Second Author.)
>
> Concerns were raised about two maintainers from the same company
> colluding to get a patch in from their company; but such maintainers
> could already collude, by working on the patch in secret, and posting
> it publicly with only a single author's SoB, and having the other
> person review it.
>
> There's also something slightly strange about adding "Reviewed-by" to
> code that you've written; but in the end you're reviewing not only the
> code itself, but the final arrangement of it.  There's no need to
> overcomplicate things.
>
> Encode this in MAINTAINERS as follows:
>
> * Refine the wording of requirement #2 in the check-in policy; such
> that *each change* must have approval from someone other than *the
> person who wrote it*.
>
> * Add a paragraph explicitly stating that the multiple-SoB-approval
>    system satisfies the requirements, and why.
>
> Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx>

Somewhat unrelated. I see you switched to you @cloud.com e-mails. Are 
the @citrix.com to work in the future? If not, then you (and other from 
citrix) may want to send an e-mail to update MAINTAINERS accordingly.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall