On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 02:16:36PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 23.11.2023 um 12:40 hat Daniel P. Berrangé geschrieben: > > 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 alot of content beyond the part about > > sign-off an thus is misleading/distracting to QEMU contributors. > > > > 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. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > > --- > > docs/devel/code-provenance.rst | 197 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > docs/devel/index-process.rst | 1 + > > docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst | 18 +-- > > 3 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > > > > diff --git a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000..b4591a2dec > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > > @@ -0,0 +1,197 @@ > > +.. _code-provenance: > > + > > +Code provenance > > +=============== > > + > > +Certifying patch submissions > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > + > > +The QEMU community **mandates** all contributors to certify provenance > > +of patch submissions they make to the project. To put it another way, > > +contributors must indicate that they are legally permitted to contribute > > +to the project. > > + > > +Certification is achieved with a low overhead by adding a single line > > +to the bottom of every git commit:: > > + > > + Signed-off-by: YOUR NAME <YOUR@EMAIL> > > + > > +This existence of this line asserts that the author of the patch is > > +contributing in accordance with the `Developer's Certificate of > > +Origin <https://developercertifcate.org>`__: > > + > > +.. _dco: > > + > > +:: > > + Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 > > + > > + By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: > > + > > + (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I > > + have the right to submit it under the open source license > > + indicated in the file; or > > + > > + (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best > > + of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source > > + license and I have the right under that license to submit that > > + work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part > > + by me, under the same open source license (unless I am > > + permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated > > + in the file; or > > + > > + (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other > > + person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified > > + it. > > + > > + (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution > > + are public and that a record of the contribution (including all > > + personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is > > + maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with > > + this project or the open source license(s) involved. > > + > > +It is generally expected that the name and email addresses used in one > > +of the ``Signed-off-by`` lines, matches that of the git commit ``Author`` > > +field. If the person sending the mail is also one of the patch authors, > > +it is further expected that the mail ``From:`` line name & address match > > +one of the ``Signed-off-by`` lines. > > Isn't the S-o-b expected even if the person sending the mail isn't one > of the patch authors, i.e. certifying (c) rather than (a) or (b) from > the DCO? This is essentially the same case as what a subsystem > maintainer does.
Yes, you are right. > > +Other commit tags > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > + > > +While the ``Signed-off-by`` tag is mandatory, there are a number of > > +other tags that are commonly used during QEMU development > > + > > + * **``Reviewed-by``**: when a QEMU community member reviews a patch > > + on the mailing list, if they consider the patch acceptable, they > > + should send an email reply containing a ``Reviewed-by`` tag. > > + > > + NB: a subsystem maintainer sending a pull request would replace > > + their own ``Reviewed-by`` with another ``Signed-off-by`` > > As Philippe already mentioned, this isn't necessarily the case. It's a > common enough practice to add a S-o-b (which technically only certifies > the DCO) without removing the R-b (which tells that the content was > actually reviewed in detail - maintainers don't always do that if there > are already R-bs from trusted community members). Yes, will change. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
