On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 12:58:18PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 23/11/23 12:40, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Currently we have a short paragraph saying that patches must include > > a Signed-off-by line, and merely link to the kernel documentation. > > The linked kernel docs have alot of content beyond the part about > > sign-off an thus is misleading/distracting to QEMU contributors. > > > > This introduces a dedicated 'code-provenance' page in QEMU talking > > about why we require sign-off, explaining the other tags we commonly > > use, and what to do in some edge cases. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > > --- > > docs/devel/code-provenance.rst | 197 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > docs/devel/index-process.rst | 1 + > > docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst | 18 +-- > > 3 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 docs/devel/code-provenance.rst
> > +Other commit tags > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > + > > +While the ``Signed-off-by`` tag is mandatory, there are a number of > > +other tags that are commonly used during QEMU development > > + > > + * **``Reviewed-by``**: when a QEMU community member reviews a patch > > + on the mailing list, if they consider the patch acceptable, they > > + should send an email reply containing a ``Reviewed-by`` tag. > > + > > + NB: a subsystem maintainer sending a pull request would replace > > + their own ``Reviewed-by`` with another ``Signed-off-by`` > > Hmm not sure about replacing, they have different meaning. You can merge > patch you haven't reviewed. But as a maintainer you must S-o-b what you > end merging (what is mentioned below in "subsystem maintainer"). I've always taken it as implied that patches I queue are reviewed by me, but replies here suggest I'm in a minority on that. That shows why it is worth documenting this for QEMU explicitly :-) > > + * **``Reported-by``**: when a QEMU community member reports a problem > > + via the mailing list, or some other informal channel that is not > > + the issue tracker, it is good practice to credit them by including > > + a ``Reported-by`` tag on any patch fixing the issue. When the > > + problem is reported via the GitLab issue tracker, however, it is > > + sufficient to just include a link to the issue. > > Hmm isn't related to the "Resolves:" tag? Gitlab supports a huge varity - resolves/fixes/closes/etc I don't think this wants to turn into a full guide on what info to include in a commit message, as we already have that in the submitting-a-patch doc, explaining the bug link syntax. So I'll still to just the tags that explicitly credit humans. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
