On 10/11/2012 12:16:58 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Scott,
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:54:46 -0500, Scott Wood scottwood@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.
You want me to read the Linux policy for documentation of how U-Boot deviates from Linux policy?
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 not what it says.
Then read http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/Patches: "the Signed-off-by: is a line at the end of the commit message by which the signer certifies that he was involved in the development of the patch and that he accepts the Developer's Certificate of Origin (see SubmittingPatches).
In U-Boot, we typically do not add a Signed-off-by: if we just pass on a patch without any changes".
Thanks. FWIW I think putting policy documents in a wiki, without any guidance on who's supposed to edit it or how changes get approved, is a bad idea. Why not put policy documents in the git-managed source tree? And changes would be proposed, discussed, and accepted/rejected like any other change. Plus there'd be at least a chance of a commit message showing rationale.
In any case, if this is the policy, we should not be saying that we follow the Linux policy.
(the "Certificate of Origin" is laid out in the "SubmittingPatches" documentation file from Linux)
Actual behavior is probably inconsistent between custodians.
I haven't seen such inconsistency and certainly don't want to see any, at least in ARM trees from which I have to pull.
I've been signing off patches I apply to the NAND tree. I recall stopping at one point in the past because someone complained, and then starting again -- not sure if someone else complained about doing it *that* way, or if I just noticed others doing it.
Looking through the history I see others that seems to be doing the same (outside ARMland), though I can't say for sure without investigating whether the patch was "passed on without any changes" in each instance.
-Scott