Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Optimization batch 12: miscellaneous unthemed stuff

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 11:42 AM Derrick Stolee [off-list ref] wrote:

On 6/4/2021 12:35 PM, Jeff King wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 08:48:21AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

          Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren [off-list ref]
     +    Acked-by: Derrick Stolee [off-list ref]

I believe the sign-off should always be the last thing in
the message. Perhaps Junio is willing to fix this without a
re-roll?

Interesting, this is the first I've ever heard of such a requirement,
and I've submitted patches this way numerous times and have seen
others do it.  A quick search through git.git history says there are
5133 commits that place such trailers before the author's
Signed-off-by, and 1175 that place them after.  While the former is
clearly more common, and some of the latter could have been Junio
adding trailers while applying the patches, there still seem like
plenty of counter-examples suggesting that there is no rule here.

I don't think there's a hard rule here. The usual advice (which I also
didn't find documented from a quick grep, but hopefully is kind of
intuitive) is that trailers should be chronological.

So if you picked up a patch from person X who signed off, then you
modified and signed off the result, then Junio signed off after
applying, we'd expect that chain of custody to be represented by reading
top to bottom. And that's what happens if you use "am -s", "commit -s",
etc.

Whether "Acked-by" happens after the author signs off or not is
debatable. Obviously it happens after the version of the patch that is
sent out. But if you re-send with an Acked-by, is the signoff your one
from before that happened first, or a new one that happened as you sent
out the patch? Perhaps a question for the philosophers. ;)

I guess I was just interpreting that the "Acked-by" was part of
the content you created, and hence it should be covered by the
sign-off. I can imagine that if Junio added it, then it would be
after your sign-off but before his.

quoted

Anyway, I think it is perfectly fine either way (as your numbers
indicate).

I agree. I didn't mean to make a big deal of it.

Sorry, it was me who made a big deal out of it.  I was just really
surprised that I had missed another rule (you correctly caught one I
did miss on a recent other series I submitted), and so I thought it
was prudent to go digging and see how I had _also_ missed this rule
and refresh myself on the rules in general.  And once I did that,
although I felt this one probably didn't qualify, I thought it was
useful to share what I found and highlight what I thought needed
clarification if I was wrong.