[LinuxBIOS] r2550 - trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom

[Stefan Reinauer]

* 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
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: info at coresystems.de  • http://www.coresystems.de/