[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission
On Saturday May 22, 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 <>

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 <>
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?
Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <> (certificate=1.0)
or maybe
Origin-certified-1.0-by: Random J Developer <>

Maybe I'm being too legalistic...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.171 / U:4.644 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site