Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] docs/traces Acked patches.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 25.03.13 at 17:46, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:48:33PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 25.03.13 at 16:37, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On 25/03/13 15:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>>>> On 25.03.13 at 15:41, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> 
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>> Please commit these patches. I can also put these on a git tree
>> >>> (if you could create on for me on xenbits.org that is it) for a git pull.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> The trace patches have been Acked-by George.
>> >> You know what - I didn't apply them precisely because the ack
>> >> came through only for patches 3 and 4. I just checked the
>> >> xen-devel archives again, and that's the state of affairs right
>> >> now too. Possibly the ack was sent to you without Cc-ing
>> >> xen-devel, but that doesn't allow me to apply them.
>> > 
>> > Is that because I had already Ack-ed an earlier version of the same 
>> > patches, as noted right above Konrad's S-o-B line?
>> 
>> I must have overlooked that, partly because I expect Acked-by
>> to be below Signed-off-by (only Reported-by goes ahead of it in
>> my opinion, to reflect work/event flow).
> 
> Oh, that would be a different workflow than with Linux, where
> Acked-by has to be above the SOB.

I just checked current SubmittingPatches and didn't spot any
such rule.

> The SOB of the last person posting it has to be at the bottom - as that
> identifies who was the last person touching / sending from a git
> tree.

Yes - workflow based. Looking at the 3.8.1 change log (arbitrarily
picked) I see no strict ordering either, and to me it just makes
sense to apply the workflow principle here too (Reported ->
Signed-off [-> {Acked|Reviewed|Tested|Signed-off}, ...].

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel