Hi,
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 01:15:09PM +0100, Uwe Hermann wrote:
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.
*
On 2/22/07, Uwe Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 01:15:09PM +0100, Uwe Hermann wrote:
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
I think I understand this now, and it is ok by me, if the line Commit
appears in a message which is telling us a commit happened. I think it
is important that we know if a patch has been committed.
I tend to get the mail from the SVN daemon earlier than
the one from the discussion list, but
* 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
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 10:48:33PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
Speaking of the DCO, we are using the verbatim text of the DCO 1.1
but we have renamed it to LinuxBIOS Developer's Certificate of
Origin 1.1 on the wiki page.
Good point.
Was that intentional?
Yes, but that was wrong. I
* Uwe Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070211 16:19]:
I posted an example a few days ago. I see a patch on the list,
take it, modify it to improve _some_ parts of it, but it's still
not finished and I'm still don't agree that it should be committed.
But at least it's a bit better now.
In such a
Well it would be really weird to sign-off on a patch that
you don't agree with, so acked-by is quite redundant if you
already signed off on a patch.
I posted an example a few days ago. I see a patch on the list,
take it, modify it to improve _some_ parts of it, but it's still
not finished
I posted an example a few days ago. I see a patch on the list,
take it, modify it to improve _some_ parts of it, but it's still
not finished and I'm still don't agree that it should be committed.
But at least it's a bit better now.
In such a case I'd say I should sign-off (as I modified the
Peter Stuge wrote:
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 06:26:09PM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Signed-off-by means I am (in part) responsible for this
ending up in thid repo, i.e., you wrote part of the patch
or you were on the path pushing it in.
Acked-by is used as a comment looks fine by me when
Signed-off-by means I am (in part) responsible for this
ending up in thid repo, i.e., you wrote part of the patch
or you were on the path pushing it in.
Acked-by is used as a comment looks fine by me when not
taking direct action yourself.
Does commiting constitute on the path pushing it
* Segher Boessenkool [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070210 20:13]:
Signed-off-by means I am (in part) responsible for this
ending up in thid repo, i.e., you wrote part of the patch
or you were on the path pushing it in.
Acked-by is used as a comment looks fine by me when not
taking direct action
Thanks for the comments!
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 08:58:23PM +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Does commiting constitute on the path pushing it in ?
Yes. Read the DCO if you're still unsure :-)
DCO? Is that an abbreviation for
http://www.linuxbios.org/Development_Guidelines?
DCO is
Ie. if I review and then commit, should I sign off or ack?
Sign off.
I would say ack, but not necessarily sign off.
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,
Ie. if I review and then commit, should I sign off or ack?
Sign off.
I would say ack, but not necessarily sign off.
I guess Segher's point is that committing a patch sent to the mailing
list falls under (c) in the DCO, so I should sign off. Is the mailing
list really directly to me ?
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:42:03AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Ie. if I review and then commit, should I sign off or ack?
Sign off.
I would say ack, but not necessarily sign off.
If you don't sign off on something, you can't put it
into the public tree -- that's the whole
As for the meaning of Acked-by, I'm not so sure. We currently use
Signed-off-by as a tagging of I wrote (parts of) this code
(i.e. is has legal importance), and the Acked-by merely as
ok, looks fine indicator (but you didn't write the code).
Signed-off-by means I am (in part) responsible for
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 06:26:09PM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Signed-off-by means I am (in part) responsible for this
ending up in thid repo, i.e., you wrote part of the patch
or you were on the path pushing it in.
Acked-by is used as a comment looks fine by me when not
taking direct
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 10:57:42PM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Hi!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Signed-off-by: Adam Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Adam Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It
Author: stepan
Date: 2007-02-06 20:47:50 +0100 (Tue, 06 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 2550
Modified:
trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom/82802ab.c
trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom/Makefile
trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom/flash.h
trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom/flash_enable.c
Hi!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Signed-off-by: Adam Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Adam Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems there is still some confusion about Signed-off-by
and Acked-by. The
20 matches
Mail list logo
