On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 05:08:46PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > 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,
Well sometimes I queue patches not in my area that I have seen languish on list with no replies for too long. I generally do a cursory review but not to the level that I feel justifies Reviewed-by. > but replies here suggest I'm in a minority on that. That shows why it is > worth documenting this for QEMU explicitly :-) Absolutely.
