[LinuxBIOS] r2550 - trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom

[Segher Boessenkool]

>> 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?

If not, the whole signed-off-by thing becomes useless,
so it better be policy.

>> 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?

Dunno.  "acked-by" as used in Linux is only an informal
comment; if LinuxBIOS wants to formalise its usage, the
rules should be written down somewhere.

> Adding my own
> Signed-off-by doesn't imply review, or does it?

It doesn't, but it would be silly (and irresponsible)
to sign-off on something you didn't look at first.

>>> 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?

No.  Every step in the chain into the repo needs to
be tracked or the "chain of trust" is lost.

>> 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.
>
> Yes.
>
> 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. :)

I don't see the incompatibility?  Unless you mean that
the acked-by tags should be put into the commit; that
is a foolish thing indeed, there are many problems with
it (for example, it is easy to forget to add one of those
when you commit; not the case with signed-off, since
that's in the patch when you send it out for review
already, and a committer will add it automatically if
he has his tools set up for that).


Segher