[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: |
Daniel P . Berrangé |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: introduce dedicated page about code provenance / sign-off |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:08:46 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/2.2.10 (2023-03-25) |
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 12:58:18PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 23/11/23 12:40, 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>
> > ---
> > docs/devel/code-provenance.rst | 197 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > docs/devel/index-process.rst | 1 +
> > docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst | 18 +--
> > 3 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 docs/devel/code-provenance.rst
> > +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``
>
> Hmm not sure about replacing, they have different meaning. You can merge
> patch you haven't reviewed. But as a maintainer you must S-o-b what you
> end merging (what is mentioned below in "subsystem maintainer").
I've always taken it as implied that patches I queue are reviewed by me,
but replies here suggest I'm in a minority on that. That shows why it is
worth documenting this for QEMU explicitly :-)
> > + * **``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.
>
> Hmm isn't related to the "Resolves:" tag?
Gitlab supports a huge varity - resolves/fixes/closes/etc
I don't think this wants to turn into a full guide on what info to include
in a commit message, as we already have that in the submitting-a-patch doc,
explaining the bug link syntax. So I'll still to just the tags that
explicitly credit humans.
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 :|