[LinuxBIOS] r2550 - trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom
stuge-linuxbios at cdy.org
Sun Feb 11 05:06:49 CET 2007
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 03:42:43AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> If you don't sign off on something, you can't put it
> >> into the public tree -- that's the whole philosophy
> >> behind the DCO, to have all contributions traceable
> >> to their origins, by having a "trail of bread crumbs".
> > Note I did not write the patch and the original author has of course
> > signed off, but is unable to commit herself.
> [I don't mean you personally of course].
> You can only commit a patch to the tree if you take
> responsibility for it (at some level), and that means
> you'll have to sign off on it.
Ok, so our policy is that the committer always adds a sign off?
> > Again, the poster has signed off.
> When you want to pass the code on (for example, by
> committing it to the repo), you have to sign off on
> it as well.
But I also reviewed it, so I should ack, right? Adding my own
Signed-off-by doesn't imply review, or does it?
> > It seems neither the sign-off nor the ack fits for just a commit.
> You *need* a signed-off for a commit though, that's what the
> DCO is all about.
Yes, but does the committer need to sign-off too?
Isn't it enough with the signed-off-by from the author and an ack
from the committer?
> If what you want is keeping track of committers -- that's not
> a property of a patch, but a property of the repo; any good
> SCM tracks that for you automatically.
But the policy of sign-off+ack required for commit is incompatible
with the suggested author sign-off+committer sign-off scheme, hence
my questions. :)
More information about the coreboot