On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:41:38AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 09:47, Samuel Tardieu <s...@rfc1149.net> wrote: > > However, this is not what QEMU has been using as far as I can see, > > as S-o-b tend to stay in their original positions. I even opened > > an issue on b4 a few weeks ago because of this > > <https://github.com/mricon/b4/issues/16>, and I reverted to using > > git-publish. But if this is ok to use an arbitrary order for > > non-S-o-b headers, I can get back to b4. > > I think QEMU doesn't have a specific existing practice here. > What you see is largely the result of people using whatever > tooling they have and accepting the ordering it gives them. > So I don't think you should stop using b4 just because > the ordering it happens to produce isn't the same as > somebody else's tooling. > > I think trying to impose some subtle distinction of meaning > on the ordering of tags is not going to work, because there > are going to be too many cases where people don't adhere > to the ordering distinction because they don't know about > it or don't understand it. > > As Daniel says, as long as the Signed-off-by tags are > in basically the right order for developer vs maintainer > that's the only strong ordering constraint we have.
To think of it another way.... Signed-off-by is the only tag which has defined legal meaning in terms of asserting that the people involved have permission to contribute. All the other tags (Reviewed/Tested/etc) are merely a historical record of the development process, and have no legal implications. This makes Signed-off-by the important one, and the others all in the "nice to have" category. 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 :|
