lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]   [less markup]   [headers]   [forward]  
 
Messages in this thread
/
FromNeil Brown <>
DateSun, 23 May 2004 17:41:29 +1000
SubjectRe: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission
On Saturday May 22, torvalds@osdl.org wrote:
> 
> The plan is to make this very light-weight, and to fit in with how we 
> already pass patches around - just add the sign-off to the end of the 
> explanation part of the patch. That sign-off would be just a single line 
> at the end (possibly after _other_ peoples sign-offs), saying:
> 
> 	Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.org>
> 

Sounds straight forward enough.

I make sure the appropriate line is at the bottom  of the changelog
comment for every patch I submit.
When I get a patch from someone else that doesn't have their
Signed-off-by line, I either:
  1/ if it is a trivial patch, just add  
               From:  Random J Developer <random@developer.org>
  2/ if it is more substantial (using my own personal definition of
     substantial), I ask them to sign it off.

> 
> 	Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.0

If this is version 1.0, then presumably there might be a version X, 
 X != 1.0  one day. In that case, should the Signed-off-by: tag indicate
 the Certificate of Origin that they are asserting by reference?
e.g.
    Signed-off-by:  Random J Developer <random@developer.org> (certificate=1.0)
or maybe
    Origin-certified-1.0-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.org>

Maybe I'm being too legalistic...

NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.420 / U:0.210 seconds]
©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans