* Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070212 00:49]: > >> 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.
now, why exactly? > > 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? > > 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. I dont think the chain of trust goes lost. The repository monitors who did the commit, so it will be as easy to find out as grepping for the Signed-off-by: ? ie. Are you saying the mails that get sent out to the mailing list should be filtered to say Signed-off-by: Committer instead of Committed by: Committer ? > 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). If you think our review process is useless, you are of course not forced to contribute to it. Stefan -- coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br. Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] • http://www.coresystems.de/ -- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios