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. 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.
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".
(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.
Amicalement,