Hi Stephen, On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:26:45 -0600, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> 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. My bad. I've indeed misread the Linux doc. However, the U-Boot doc is clearly on the side of "no Signed-off-by from custodians". Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
