[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 15/15] rdma: account for the time spent in M

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 15/15] rdma: account for the time spent in MIG_STATE_SETUP through QMP
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 07:32:03 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6

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.

Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]