Em Fri, 01 Aug 2025 10:55:55 +0300 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2025, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 31/07/2025 13:55, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> B4 does not follow the proper order: > > > > There is no "proper order" in terms of absolute facts. > > Let's just decide whatever order b4 uses *is* the proper order, and save > ourselves endless hours of debating! :p I don't think it makes sense to have a "proper order" verified on checkpatch, as some tags may appear on different places. For instance, the custody chain was designed to have SoBs appearing in different places: - author(s) SoB together co-developed-by are usually the first ones; - then patches may have been reviewed, tested, acked or passed on some other trees, gaining tags like tested-by, R-B, A-B, SoB, Cc; - the subsystem maintainer will add his SoB in the end. non-custody chain tags, like fixes, closes, reported-by... usually comes first, but I don't think we need to enforce an specific order. Link, for instance, could be used on different places, with different purposes. At least for me, the only part that shall really follow a proper order is the custody chain: It has to follow how the patch was handled, from the authors at the top up to the maintainers at the bottom. Thanks, Mauro
