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

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jun 4, 2021, 19:53 UTC
Message-ID: <YLqEnEJgQANm1SCD@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <c9d596f3-cfc9-4bb7-1008-4873dafd8270@gmail.com>

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 02:42:03PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> > 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.

FWIW, that's how I interpret it, too. I was curious how it looks for my own patches, which is easy-ish to dig up with:

  git log --author=peff --grep=Acked-by --format='%H%n%(trailers)'

They're mostly after my signoff there, but I think that's because I very rarely add in the Ack, and mostly Junio does it (likewise for Reviewed-by).

My workflow is maybe a little different than others, too, in that I very rarely signoff patches in my repo, but add it via "format-patch -s" when sending them out (so naturally it would come after anything I had typed).

> > 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.

It was a little bit of an interesting diversion, though. :)

-Peff