On 10/11/2012 11:16 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Scott, > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:54:46 -0500, Scott Wood > <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: > >> On 10/10/2012 01:40:54 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >>>>> Re committer identity, I don't see the relationship with "by" >>> tags, and >>>>> especially with Singed-off-by, since the sign-off is not and must >>> not >>>>> be related to the committer of the patch, but to its author(s). >>>> >>>> At least the way the Linux kernel uses the tag, both the original >>> author >>>> of the patch /and/ anyone who applies the patch, cherry-picks the >>> patch, >>>> ... must add their S-o-b line. I think U-Boot isn't using that part >>> of >>>> the model. >>> >>> No, it isn't. IIUC, U-Boot's "Signed-off-by" is supposed to mean "I >>> am (one of) the autor(s) of this patch". >> >> Is this documented anywhere? >> >> http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/DevelopmentProcess says, "U-Boot has >> adopted the Linux kernel signoff policy". > > Please do read the Linux kernel signoff policy as laid out in > Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Branch or subsystem maintainers should > add their Signed-off-by only if they made modifications to the original > patch in the process of applying it.
That's certainly not what I understand from reading that document. Can you please point out the part the states that policy? (The part I think you may be talking about is that when you edit a patch, it is polite to add a note indicating what you changed *in addition* to adding your Signed-off-by tag): Quoting that doc: > If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly > modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not > exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to > rule (c), you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally > counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust > the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and > make him endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it is recommended that > you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating > the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it > seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all > enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that > you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example : > > Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <ran...@developer.example.org> > [lu...@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h] > Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lu...@maintainer.example.org> and in particular, the following parts of that doc is what tells me that committers should always add S-o-b even if the commit didn't change: > Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 > > By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: ... > (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other > person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified > it. > The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the > development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
