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

> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 08:48:21AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> 
>>>>           Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
>>>>      +    Acked-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
>>>
>>> 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. ;)