On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 01:01:00PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 at 11:40, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> 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 > > "a lot" > > > sign-off an thus is misleading/distracting to QEMU contributors. > > "and thus are" > > > > > 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. > > Good idea; I've felt for a while now that it was a little awkward > to have to point people at that big kernel doc page. > > > > 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 > > > > diff --git a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000..b4591a2dec > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > > @@ -0,0 +1,197 @@ > > +.. _code-provenance: > > + > > +Code provenance > > +=============== > > + > > +Certifying patch submissions > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > + > > +The QEMU community **mandates** all contributors to certify provenance > > +of patch submissions they make to the project. To put it another way, > > +contributors must indicate that they are legally permitted to contribute > > +to the project. > > + > > +Certification is achieved with a low overhead by adding a single line > > +to the bottom of every git commit:: > > + > > + Signed-off-by: YOUR NAME <YOUR@EMAIL> > > + > > +This existence of this line asserts that the author of the patch is > > +contributing in accordance with the `Developer's Certificate of > > +Origin <https://developercertifcate.org>`__: > > + > > +.. _dco: > > + > > +:: > > + Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 > > + > > + By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: > > + > > + (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I > > + have the right to submit it under the open source license > > + indicated in the file; or > > + > > + (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best > > + of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source > > + license and I have the right under that license to submit that > > + work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part > > + by me, under the same open source license (unless I am > > + permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated > > + in the file; or > > + > > + (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other > > + person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified > > + it. > > + > > + (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution > > + are public and that a record of the contribution (including all > > + personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is > > + maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with > > + this project or the open source license(s) involved. > > + > > +It is generally expected that the name and email addresses used in one > > +of the ``Signed-off-by`` lines, matches that of the git commit ``Author`` > > +field. If the person sending the mail is also one of the patch authors, > > +it is further expected that the mail ``From:`` line name & address match > > +one of the ``Signed-off-by`` lines. > > Is it? Patches sent via the sr.ht service won't do that, and I'm > pretty sure we've had a few contributors in the past who send > patches from different addresses to avoid problems with their > corporate mail server mangling patches. I think this would be > better softened to something like a recommendation ("Generally > you should use the same email addresses ... ").
Yes, I forgot about sr.ht being wierd in this respect, so I'll take your suggestion. > > + > > + * **``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`` > > I agree with Philippe here -- you add signed-off-by, you don't > replace reviewed-by. Yep, will change that. > > > + > > + * **``Acked-by``**: when a QEMU subsystem maintainer approves a patch > > + that touches their subsystem, but intends to allow a different > > + maintainer to queue it and send a pull request, they would send > > + a mail containing a ``Acked-by`` tag. > > I would personally also say "Acked-by does not imply a full code > review of the patch; if the subsystem maintainer has done a full > review, they should use the Reviewed-by tag instead." > > But I know that there are some differences of opinion on exactly > what Acked-by: means... I'll incorporate something along those lines with a little fuzzyness to give flexibility. > > + > > + * **``Tested-by``**: when a QEMU community member has functionally > > + tested the behaviour of the patch in some manner, they should > > + send an email reply conmtaning a ``Tested-by`` tag. > > + > > + * **``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. > > Maybe we should add a bit of encouraging text here along the lines of: > > Reviewing and testing is something anybody can do -- if you've > reviewed the code or tested it, feel free to send an email with > your tag to say you've done that, or to ask questions if there's > part of the patch you don't understand. > > ? Or perhaps that would be better elsewhere; IDK. I'll put a little bit in here but want to keep it relatively concise, since we have other docs about more general contribution practices. > > +If the abandoned patch already had a ``Signed-off-by`` from the original > > +author this **must** be preserved. The new contributor **must** then add > > +their own ``Signed-off-by`` after the original one if they made any > > +further changes to it. It is common to include a comment just prior to > > +the new ``Signed-off-by`` indicating what extra changes were made. For > > +example:: > > + > > + Signed-off-by: Some Person <some.per...@example.com> > > + [Rebased and added support for 'foo'] > > + Signed-off-by: New Person <new.per...@example.com> > > You might want to use two different email domains in this example; > an abandoned project picked up by somebody from the same company > (assuming the usual copyright-belongs-to-company) is a bit different > from an abandoned project picked up by an entirely unrelated person. Yes good idea. > I think in this case it's also worth stating the general principles: > > ===begin=== > The general principles with picking up abandoned work are: > * we should continue to credit the first author for their work > * we should track the provenance of the code > * we should also acknowledge the efforts of the person picking > up the work > * the commit messages should indicate who is responsible for > what parts of the final patch > > In complicated cases or if in doubt, you can always ask on the > mailing list for advice. > > If the new work you'd need to do to resubmit the patches is > significant, it's worth dropping the original author a > friendly email to let them know, in case you might be > duplicating something the original author is still working on. > ===endit=== > > perhaps ? I'll incorporate somethnig along these lines. 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 :|
