>> The reason of adding the Signed-off-by is to have a better understanding >> of whom have been involved in particular commits/patches. While the >> "Author field" in the git log (git log --pretty=fuller) can only have >> one name, more people can have been involved in the patch. Using the >> Signed-off-by is a way to credit them as well. >> >> And when everyone is consistent using the Signed-off-by line, writing >> tools which parses our git log is also far more easier. >> >> The other aspect of the Signed-off-by: line has to do with juridical >> stuff, to protect the OpenVPN project. By adding the Signed-off-by: >> line you basically sign-off to "Yes, I am the author of these changes >> and I am permitted to share them with the project". For more >> information, these pages explains it even better (same info, two >> different sources): >> <https://git.eclipse.org/r/Documentation/user-signedoffby.html> >> <https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches#n409> > > Hi David, > > Looks like the rationale for Signed-off-by by is not properly documented in > Trac: > > <https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/DeveloperDocumentation> > > David: do you want to integrate above explanation to Trac or shall I?
I intended to update the wiki page as well. It should be updated. The trouble is that I started thinking. But I think we should do some more modifications to more of this process. There are two things I think we should agree upon first, which is slightly different compared to the wiki page. 1) It probably makes more sense to use Reviewed-by: instead of Signed-off-by: when someone have reviewed and not added code to the commit. 2) We should probably rethink the need of Signed-off-by: lines when Gert or I do commits without modifying the patch in any way. Whom committed the patch is now also easily accessible using the --pretty=fuller argument to git log. And it should be an explicit note which states that the committer which adds a Signed-off-by: line to an unmodified commit does not mean the same as when a patch contributor does so. The committer's Signed-off-by: basically means "Yes, this patch has been accepted by N.N" ... That was the intention of this last Signed-off-by: line. If we drop the additional Signed-off-by: line, we are much closer to what other projects using Signed-off-by does. I know I'm the one to blame for all this, as I believe it was my initial suggestion. But that was many years ago; where both the git tool have improved vastly and the way git is used are nowadays somewhat more unified across projects then what it was around in 2010-ish. And I think we have all learned to use git far better over all these years as well. Thoughts? -- kind regards, David Sommerseth -- kind regards, David Sommerseth
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
