qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: introduce dedicated page about code provenance / s


From: Michael S. Tsirkin
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: introduce dedicated page about code provenance / sign-off
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 12:33:11 -0500

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 <berrange@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 :|




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]