On 16/05/2024 19.43, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 18:34, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 06:29:39PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 17:22, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
Currently we have a short paragraph saying that patches must include
a Signed-off-by line, and merely link to the kernel documentation.
The linked kernel docs have a lot of content beyond the part about
sign-off an thus are misleading/distracting to QEMU contributors.
Thanks for this -- I've felt for ages that it was a bit awkward
that we didn't have a good place to link people to for the fuller
explanation of this.
This introduces a dedicated 'code-provenance' page in QEMU talking
about why we require sign-off, explaining the other tags we commonly
use, and what to do in some edge cases.
The version of the kernel SubmittingPatches we used to link to
includes the text "sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions".
This new documentation doesn't say anything either way about
our approach to pseudonyms. I think we should probably say
something, but I don't know if we have an in-practice consensus
there, so maybe we should approach that as a separate change on
top of this patch.
Well given we referred to kernel previously then I guess that's
the concensus, no?
AIUI the kernel devs have changed their point of view on the
pseudonym question, so it's a question of whether we were
deliberately referring to that specific revision of the kernel's
practice because we agreed with it or just by chance...
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=d4563201f33a022fc0353033d9dfeb1606a88330
is where the kernel changed to saying merely "no anonymous
contributions", dropping the 'pseudonyms' part.
FWIW, we had a clear statement in our document in the past:
https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/commit/ca127fe96ddb827f3ea153610c1e8f6e374708e2#9620a1442f724c9d8bfd5408e4611ba1839fcb8a_315_321
Quoting: "Please use your real name to sign a patch (not an alias or acronym)."
But it got lost in that rework, I assume by accident?
So IMHO we had a consensus once to not allow anonymous contributions. I'm in
favor of adding such a sentence back here now.
Thomas
