[LinuxBIOS] r2550 - trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom
stuge-linuxbios at cdy.org
Sun Feb 11 03:35:27 CET 2007
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 philosophy
> behind the DCO, to have all contributions traceable
> to their origins, by having a "trail of bread crumbs".
Note I did not write the patch and the original author has of course
signed off, but is unable to commit herself.
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:46:47AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > 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" ?
> Yes. You got the code, you passed it on. You better make
> sure that you know what you're signing for though -- i.e.,
> you should make reasonably sure that the person who sent
> you the patch had the right to do so (whether something is
> sent via a mailing list makes no difference at all btw --
> conducting your business in the open doesn't change the
Again, the poster has signed off.
> > So should I actually first ack and then sign off?
> > Or do we just agree to roll the two into one for LinuxBIOS?
> > That would make whichever one we choose more ambiguous though. :\
> 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 would first review (ack) and then commit (sign off) ..
It seems neither the sign-off nor the ack fits for just a commit.
More information about the coreboot