[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:0.020 / U:19.400 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site