Re: commit tag order vs. "b4 am"

From: Randy Dunlap
Date: Tue Jan 30 2024 - 19:48:40 EST




On 1/30/24 14:34, Tony Luck wrote:
> Reinette noticed that v14 of my resctrl/SNC patch series[1] did not adhere
> to the tag order proscribed in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
> Specifically my "Signed-off-by:" was now the last tag, instead of
> appearing before the "Reviewed-by:" and "Tested-by" tags as it had in
> v13.
>
> A little digging showed that my tag had been moved to the end by "b4 am"
> when I used it to pick up some additonal tags.
>
> An e-mail discussion with Konstantin ensued to determine if this was
> a bug. Konstantin said:
>
> This is the intended behaviour, because b4 follows the chain-of-custody
> procedure. If we encounter a Signed-off-by trailer matching the identity of
> the user preparing the series, we move it to the bottom to indicate that the
> chain-of-custody boundary has moved to include the code review trailers
> received after the initial submission.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/tools/20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local/
>
> Basically, the "Signed-off-by" trailer is special because it indicates that
> everything above it is the responsibility of the person doing the sign-off. If
> we kept your Signed-off-by in the original spot, then it wouldn't be clear who
> collected and applied the trailers.

I can't find "chain of custody" anywhere in Documentation/process/, nor a
specification or example of this ordering.

Where did this b4 requirement come from?

> Question: Do the TIP maintainers agree with Konstantin's opinion that
> the Signed-off-by: includes all the tags applied prior? If so, this
> should be called out in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
>
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240126223837.21835-1-tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx/
>

thanks.
--
#Randy