On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:35:39AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > On Tuesday October 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi Neil. > > > > > > From: The Author, Primary Author, or Authors of the patch. > > > Authors should also provide a Signed-off-by: tag. > > > > > > Purpose: to give credit to authors > > The SCM should include this info and we should not duplicate this > > in the changelog's. > > I know some tools require this format but that's something else. > > If the SCM stores some tags in special places, that is fine with me. > The remove the need for the tag and an understanding of why it exists. > Can 'git' store a list of Authors? Do we want to allow a list? git stores to my best knowledge only a single author. Infrequently we need a list but then people have solved it putting relevant people in s-o-b and by give credit in changelog. This is IMHO good enugh.
> > > > > > > + > > > > +Signed-off-by: A person adding a Signed-off-by tag is attesting that > > > > the > > > > + patch is, to the best of his or her knowledge, legally > > > > able > > > > + to 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. > > > > > > Purpose: to allow subsequent review of the originality of > > > the contribution should copyright questions arise. > > > > We often use s-o-b to docuemnt the path a patch took from origin (the > > top-most s-o-b) to tree apply (lowest s-o-b). > > This is IIUC part of the intended behaviour of s-o-b but it is not > > clear from the above text. > > My understanding of Andrew Morton's position on s-o-b is that it is an > unordered set. I know this because when I have sent him patches with > a proper From: line, he has complained and begrudingly took the first > s-o-b, but said he didn't like to. > So there seems to be disagreement on this (I think it looks like a > path to - but apparently not to everyone). With the current definition you need to supply BOTH a from: and a s-o-b. I usually request a s-o-b when it is missing no matter what other content is present in the changelog. > > > > > > > > > + > > > > +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. An Acked-by tag does not > > > > + imply any involvement in the development of the patch or > > > > + that a detailed review was done. > > > > > > Purpose: to inform upstream aggregators that > > > consensus was achieved for the change. This is > > > particularly relevant for changes that affect multiple > > > Maintenance Domains. > > > > > consensus seems too strong a wording here. consensus imply more than one > > that agree on the patch where I often see people give their "Acked-by:" by > > simple changelog reading. > > I'm failing to follow your logic. > You seem to be contrasting: > "consensus imply more than one that agree" > which I agree with: "From" plus all "Acked-By" will be more than > one in all cases that "Acked-By" is used I did not realise that "concensus" in this context refered to both the one that give the "Acked-by" and the author. Viewing it this way I agree with the intent and the text. Sam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/