On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Paul Berry <stereotype...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 November 2013 12:06, Jordan Justen <jljus...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Paul Berry <stereotype...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On 13 November 2013 11:01, Frank Henigman <fjhenig...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> I'd like to see an explanation of "signed-off-by," "reviewed-by" etc. >> >> Maybe as simple as: >> >> >> >> "Use the tags signed-off-by, reviewed-by, tested-by, acked-by as for >> >> linux >> >> kernel patches >> >> (see https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches)." >> > >> > >> > That seems reasonable. Note, however, that Piglit doesn't consistently >> > use >> > "signed-off-by": >> > >> > $ git log master | grep '^commit' | wc >> > 4885 9770 234480 >> > $ git log master | grep -i 'signed-off-by' | wc >> > 1241 4969 70925 >> > >> > (If you'd like to encourage us to start using "signed-off-by" >> > consistently, >> > I'm happy to have a policy discussion about that, but the discussion >> > should >> > happen in its own email thread rather than here, so that more people >> > will >> > see it). >> >> What are the arguments against just following the kernel's >> Signed-off-by practice? >> >> It can't be difficultly since 'git commit -s' makes this trivial. :) >> > I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way. I just wanted to > make sure that if we decide to require it, the decision happens in the open > rather than in the reply to a patch, where it might get missed by a lot of > people.
Whoops. I guess I needed a bit of a transition before that question. :) When I asked "What are the arguments against just following the kernel's Signed-off-by practice?" I was directing the question to the list. In other words, lets have the discussion you were referring to. -Jordan _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
