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

Uwe Hermann uwe at hermann-uwe.de
Tue Feb 13 13:15:09 CET 2007


On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:20:45PM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> It's point (c) in the DCO.
> If you allow any code to be checked in without the person
> doing that stating he has the the right to do that, i.e.
> without adding the signed-off, all previous signed-off
> statements (by the original developer, etc.) have no
> significance as to whether the LinuxBIOS project did check
> if it was allowed (for IP or copyright reasons) to use
> the code.  Only full chains work; one missing link and
> it's broken.

Hm, good point.

> >>> 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.
> >
> > Whats missing in http://www.linuxbios.org/Development_Guidelines?
> The doc should be in the repo itself.

OK, I'll send a patch soon.

> Other than that,
> it could be formalised a bit ;-)

Do you have a patch or specific suggestions for improvements?

> I'm not saying the review process is useless; I'm saying
> that recording history of who thought what patch was a
> good idea, _when those patches never end up being committed_,
> is pretty damn useless.  A newer version of the patch
> superseded the old one; knowing who approved the final
> commit *can* of course be useful.  I wasn't commenting
> on the review process at all; just on the acked-by lines
> that people add to commit messages.

OK, how about this procedure (I don't really care anymore whether
it's compatible with the way it works in Linux, it should only be
legally "bullet-proof"):

* Everyone who creates or modifies a patch adds his Signed-off-by.

* The person who finally commits the patch adds his/her
  Signed-off-by, too (if it's not already there anyway).

* The Acked-by is completely separated from that. You send an Acked-by
  when you think this patch can be committed.
  You don't have to modify a patch for an Acked-by, you can just send
  it to say "I think this patch is ok".

* If a certain version of a patch received two Acked-by's by two
  different people, it can be committed.
  Ergo, every commit message will have 1 or more Signed-off-by lines which
  build a "chain of trust" for legal reasons, _and_ it will have 2 or more
  Acked-by lines which enforce our review process.

* The Acked-by's must be for exactly the same version of the patch.
  Acked-by's for previous versions of the patch are meaningless, they
  are not added to the commit message, only those for the exact
  incarnation of the patch which gets committed.

* So yes, it is possible to post

   - A patch with only a Sign-off-by:
     You modified the code, but don't want it to be committed, yet.
   - A patch with a Signed-off-by and an Acked-by:
     You modified the patch and you think it can be commited.
   - An email with just an Acked-by:
     You didn't touch the patch at all, but you think it can be committed.


http://www.hermann-uwe.de  | http://www.holsham-traders.de
http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20070213/ba4cf1c5/attachment.sig>

More information about the coreboot mailing list