On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 05:16:45PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 09:25:13AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:40:25AM +0000, 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> > > > > > > + * The non-primary author's contributions were so trivial that > > > + they can be considered not subject to copyright. In this case > > > + the secondary authors need not include a ``Signed-off-by``. > > > + > > > + This case most commonly applies where QEMU reviewers give short > > > + snippets of code as suggested fixes to a patch. The reviewers > > > + don't need to have their own ``Signed-off-by`` added unless > > > + their code suggestion was unusually large. > > > > It is still a good policy to include attribution, e.g. > > by adding a Suggested-by tag. > > Will add this tag. > > > > > +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`` > > > + > > > + * **``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. > > > + > > > + * **``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. > > > > > > Suggested-by is also common. > > > > As long as we are here, let's document Fixes: and Cc: ? > > The submitting-a-patch doc covers more general commit message information. > I think this doc just ought to focus on tags that identify humans involved > in the process. > > I've never been sure what the point of the 'Cc' tag is, when you actually > want to use the Cc email header ? >
It records the fact that these people have been copied but did not respond. > > > diff --git a/docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst > > > b/docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst > > > index c641d948f1..ec541b3d15 100644 > > > --- a/docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst > > > +++ b/docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst > > > @@ -322,21 +322,9 @@ Patch emails must include a ``Signed-off-by:`` line > > > > > > Your patches **must** include a Signed-off-by: line. This is a hard > > > requirement because it's how you say "I'm legally okay to contribute > > > -this and happy for it to go into QEMU". The process is modelled after > > > -the `Linux kernel > > > -<http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches?id=f6f94e2ab1b33f0082ac22d71f66385a60d8157f#n297>`__ > > > -policy. > > > - > > > -If you wrote the patch, make sure your "From:" and "Signed-off-by:" > > > -lines use the same spelling. It's okay if you subscribe or contribute to > > > -the list via more than one address, but using multiple addresses in one > > > -commit just confuses things. If someone else wrote the patch, git will > > > -include a "From:" line in the body of the email (different from your > > > -envelope From:) that will give credit to the correct author; but again, > > > -that author's Signed-off-by: line is mandatory, with the same spelling. > > > - > > > -There are various tooling options for automatically adding these tags > > > -include using ``git commit -s`` or ``git format-patch -s``. For more > > > +this and happy for it to go into QEMU". For full guidance, read the > > > +:ref:`code-provenance` documentation. > > > + > > > information see `SubmittingPatches 1.12 > > > > > > <http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches?id=f6f94e2ab1b33f0082ac22d71f66385a60d8157f#n297>`__. > > > > this "information" now looks orphaned or am I confused? > > Yes, forgot to cull it. > > 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 :|
