lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Subject[PATCH] Documentation/patch-tags, one more time
From
Date
Somebody recently asked me about this patch, so I dug it up for one last
try. I do believe there is value in describing patch tags, and,
certainly, nobody has objected to the idea. Comments from several
reviewers were addressed before the previous posting.

jon

--

Add a document describing the various tags attached to patches.

Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
---
Documentation/00-INDEX | 2 +
Documentation/patch-tags | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 Documentation/patch-tags
diff --git a/Documentation/00-INDEX b/Documentation/00-INDEX
index 6e9c405..a900a6d 100644
--- a/Documentation/00-INDEX
+++ b/Documentation/00-INDEX
@@ -289,6 +289,8 @@ parport.txt
- how to use the parallel-port driver.
parport-lowlevel.txt
- description and usage of the low level parallel port functions.
+patch-tags
+ - description of the tags which can be added to patches
pci-error-recovery.txt
- info on PCI error recovery.
pci.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/patch-tags b/Documentation/patch-tags
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c2fb56c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/patch-tags
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+Patches headed for the mainline may contain a variety of tags documenting
+who played a hand in (or was at least aware of) their progress. All of
+these tags have the form:
+
+ Something-done-by: Full name <email@address> [optional random stuff]
+
+These tags are:
+
+From: The original author of the patch. This tag will ensure
+ that credit is properly given when somebody other than the
+ original author submits the patch.
+
+Signed-off-by: A person adding a Signed-off-by tag is attesting that the
+ patch, to the best of his or her knowledge, can legally be
+ merged into the mainline and distributed under the terms of
+ the GNU General Public License, version 2. See the
+ Developer's Certificate of Origin, found in
+ Documentation/SubmittingPatches, for the precise meaning of
+ Signed-off-by. This tag assures upstream maintainers that
+ the provenance of the patch is known and allows the origin
+ of the patch to be reviewed should copyright questions
+ arise.
+
+Acked-by: The person named (who should be an active developer in the
+ area addressed by the patch) is aware of the patch and has
+ no objection to its inclusion; it informs upstream
+ maintainers that a certain degree of consensus on the patch
+ as been achieved.. An Acked-by tag does not imply any
+ involvement in the development of the patch or that a
+ detailed review was done.
+
+Reviewed-by: The patch has been reviewed and found acceptable according
+ to the Reviewer's Statement as found at the bottom of this
+ file. A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the
+ patch is an appropriate modification of the kernel without
+ any remaining serious technical issues. Any interested
+ reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a Reviewed-by
+ tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to
+ reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review
+ which has been done on the patch.
+
+Cc: The person named was given the opportunity to comment on
+ the patch. This is the only tag which might be added
+ without an explicit action by the person it names. This
+ tag documents that potentially interested parties have been
+ included in the discussion.
+
+Tested-by: The patch has been successfully tested (in some
+ environment) by the person named. This tag informs
+ maintainers that some testing has been performed, provides
+ a means to locate testers for future patches, and ensures
+ credit for the testers.
+
+
+----
+
+Reviewer's statement of oversight
+
+By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
+
+ (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to evaluate its
+ appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into the mainline kernel.
+
+ (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been
+ communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with the
+ submitter's response to my comments.
+
+ (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this submission,
+ I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a worthwhile modification to
+ the kernel, and (2) free of known issues which would argue against its
+ inclusion.
+
+ (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I do not
+ (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any warranties or guarantees
+ that it will achieve its stated purpose or function properly in any
+ given situation.
--
1.5.4


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-08 17:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site