Hi Wolfgang, Stefano, On 11/23/11 18:01, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Igor Grinberg, > > In message <4eccb840.9050...@compulab.co.il> you wrote: >> >>> Because I am not the author of the patches, I do not add my Signed-off, >>> and I do the same for u-boot-imx, where I am the custodian. As far as I >>> know, all custodians are doing in the same way. >> >> I see... Is there a U-Boot policy regarding this somewhere? > > Nobody bothered yet to write down such a thing, so we all go on as we > started some time in the past. > >> Because in Linux every person involved in pushing patches >> should add an SOB to the commit message. > > The question is how you define "pushing". > "Documentation/SubmittingPatches" says: > > | 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. > | > | then you just add a line saying > | > | Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <ran...@developer.example.org> > > (a) and (b) don't apply here, and (d) is not relevant in this context. > So the question is if (c) applies, or not.
Well, I think yes (c) applies here and if you look into the Linux git log, you will see that all patches applied by maintainers are also signed by them. > > > My personal point of view is that someone who just applies a patch > (without any changes) from the mailing list or from PatchWork does not > have to sign it. This is perfectly fine. Should we have this written somewhere? Or should we adopt the Linux version of SubmittingPatches in regard to signing commits? > > If it were the other way round, I would have a problem for example > when I use "git pull" or "git merge" to apply commits from a > custodian's repository - neither "git pull" nor "git merge" provide > ways to sign such an action - not to mention that then I would have to > sign all included commits, too. Right, and that is not done also in Linux - when Linus Torvalds pulls stuff in, he *does not* sign it as well, because (c) *does not* apply in this case, so you will _not_ have a problem. > > > But maybe I'm just misinterpreting... Well, if (c) really does not apply here, then probably you are misinterpreting... -- Regards, Igor. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
