On 06/28/2013 01:15 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 28/06/2013 00:58, Eric Blake ha scritto:
Using the previous patches, we're now able to timestamp the
SETUP state. Once we have this time, let the user know about it
in the schema.
Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <address@hidden> Signed-off-by:
Michael R. Hines <address@hidden>
Usually, Reviewed-by lines are listed _after_ S-o-b lines -
signature lines are typically chronological, but the patch has to
be signed before a review can have any weight at getting the patch
into a pull request :)
Hmm, that's not how I understood it. The last line in the message
should be S-o-b. If _I_ collect the Reviewed-bys when committing, I'll do
Signed-off-by: Michael R. Hines <address@hidden>
Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <address@hidden>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
That's what I meant by signatures being chronological. The _first_ line
is Michael's s-o-b, since he wrote it; on any of Michael's respins where
he adds signatures collected during the review process (which will only
be reviewed-by or tested-by - here a review from Juan), those come next;
then when the maintainer incorporates the patch into a pull request,
further signatures are collected (any reviewed-by that were not
incorporated by Michael because no respin was required, followed by the
final s-o-b saying the maintainer modified the commit message as part of
incorporating into the pull request).
But since Michael is the one collecting the tags from previous
submissions of the patch series, he's placing it right.
Having Michael's s-o-b last, after reviewed-by picked up from earlier
revisions, is not chronological. Maintainers add reviewed-by before
their own s-o-b, but only because their s-o-b is a secondary s-o-b; I
still don't see why the original author would add reviewed-by before
their (lone) s-o-b.