[LinuxBIOS] r2550 - trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom
stepan at coresystems.de
Mon Feb 12 12:28:08 CET 2007
* Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel.crashing.org> [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
ie. Are you saying the mails that get sent out to the mailing list
should be filtered to say
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.
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613
Email: info at coresystems.de • http://www.coresystems.de/
More information about the coreboot