Messages in this thread | | | From | Neil Brown <> | Date | Sun, 23 May 2004 17:41:29 +1000 | Subject | Re: [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/
| |