On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 01:30:30PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 07:54:04AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:45:19AM +0000, Salil Mehta wrote: > > > > > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 12:12 PM > > > > To: Salil Mehta <salil.me...@huawei.com> > > > > Cc: xianglai li <lixiang...@loongson.cn>; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; > > > > Bernhard > > > > Beschow <shen...@gmail.com>; Salil Mehta <salil.me...@opnsrc.net>; > > > > Xiaojuan > > > > Yang <yangxiaoj...@loongson.cn>; Song Gao <gaos...@loongson.cn>; Igor > > > > Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>; Ani Sinha <anisi...@redhat.com>; Paolo > > > > Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>; Richard Henderson > > > > <richard.hender...@linaro.org>; Eduardo Habkost <edua...@habkost.net>; > > > > Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelb...@gmail.com>; Philippe Mathieu-Daudé > > > > <phi...@linaro.org>; wangyanan (Y) <wangyana...@huawei.com>; Daniel P. > > > > Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com>; Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>; David > > > > Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>; Bibo Mao <maob...@loongson.cn> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] Update CPUs AML with cpu-(ctrl)dev change > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 10:49:08AM +0000, Salil Mehta wrote: > > > > > Hi Xianglai, > > > > > FYI. RFC V2 is out and you can now drop the arch agnostic patches from > > > > > your patch-set. Please check the details in the cover letter which one > > > > > you need to pick and rebase from: > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20230926100436.28284-1- > > > > salil.me...@huawei.com/T/#t > > > > > > > > > > I am planning to float the architecture agnostic patch-set within this > > > > > week which will have same patches and in same order as mentioned in > > > > > the cover letter. This will untie the development across different > > > > > architectures. > > > > > > > > > > Many thanks > > > > > Salil. > > > > > > > > However, please get authorship info right. This claims patch has been > > > > codeveloped by Bernhard Beschow, xianglai li and yourself. > > > > Your patch claims a completely different list of authors > > > > > > Yes, because those are the people who have developed the patches. > > > > > > > with yourself being the only common author. > > > > Not nice. > > > > > > I have already replied in the other thread. This patch has been > > > taken from the ARM patch-set sent in the year 2020. > > > > > > I am not sure who is the other author and how he has contributed. > > > > > > Co-developed-by usually points at main authors. > > > > > > > > > If you are not sure then find out please. > > And to help you stop guessing at the rules: > > > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > > > > Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple > > developers; > > it is used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author > > attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single > > patch. Since > > Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be > > immediately > > followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author. Standard > > sign-off > > procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags should > > reflect the > > chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of > > whether > > the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:. Notably, the > > last > > Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the > > patch. > > Note, that's a linux.git docs requirement you're pointing to, > not a QEMU one. > > I don't think QEMU has historically gone about this level > of precise detail/strictness. > > Nothing in the DCO requires every co-developer to add a S-o-B. > The person adding a S-o-B is attesting that they are confident > they have the rights to submit this. One way they can attain > this confidence is if the people they worked with add their own > S-o-B but that's not a hard requirement. *If* some co-developers > were working inside the same company and copyright is owned by > the company, it is reasonable to only have one S-o-B for the > person who finally submits it. That's a judgement call the person > submitting can make. > > With regards, > Daniel
We really should write the rules up btw. And, I think it would be a really bad idea to use exactly the same tag as linux with a slightly different set of rules. > -- > |: 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 :|
