Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> writes:
> Hi Markus,
>
(Cc'ing Yi, Clément and Zhenzhong for commit eda4c9b5b3c)
>
> On 12/3/25 10:45, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> I stumbled over commits that carry the author's Reviewed-by.
>>
>> There may be cases where the recorded author isn't the lone author, and
>> the recorded author did some meaningful review of the patch's parts that
>> are not theirs. Mind that we do need all authors to provide their
>> Signed-off-by.
>>
>> When the only Signed-off-by is from the recorded author, and there's
>> also their Reviewed-by, the Reviewed-by is almost certainly bogus.
>>
>> Now, accidents happen, no big deal, etc., etc. I post this to hopefully
>> help reduce the accident rate :)
>>
>> Here's my quick & sloppy search for potentially problematic uses of
>> Reviewed-by:
>>
>> $ git-log --since 'two years ago' | awk -F: '/^commit / { commit=$0 }
>> /^Author: / { guy=$2 } /^ Reviewed-by: / { if ($2 == guy) { print commit;
>> print guy } }'
>
>
> Explaining some commits where I'm mentioned:
[...]
> Is this workflow making sense and accepted? Otherwise what should
> we change? Maybe clarify along with the tags; or including all
> Message-Id could make this easier to track?
The workflow is good enough as is if you ask me.
Note that the patches you quoted all have more than one Signed-off-by.
My quick & sloppy search neglects to filter these out :)
