[LinuxBIOS] r2550 - trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom
uwe at hermann-uwe.de
Tue Feb 13 13:15:09 CET 2007
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:20:45PM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> It's point (c) in the DCO.
> If you allow any code to be checked in without the person
> doing that stating he has the the right to do that, i.e.
> without adding the signed-off, all previous signed-off
> statements (by the original developer, etc.) have no
> significance as to whether the LinuxBIOS project did check
> if it was allowed (for IP or copyright reasons) to use
> the code. Only full chains work; one missing link and
> it's broken.
Hm, good point.
> >>> 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?
> The doc should be in the repo itself.
OK, I'll send a patch soon.
> Other than that,
> it could be formalised a bit ;-)
Do you have a patch or specific suggestions for improvements?
> I'm not saying the review process is useless; I'm saying
> that recording history of who thought what patch was a
> good idea, _when those patches never end up being committed_,
> is pretty damn useless. A newer version of the patch
> superseded the old one; knowing who approved the final
> commit *can* of course be useful. I wasn't commenting
> on the review process at all; just on the acked-by lines
> that people add to commit messages.
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
* Everyone who creates or modifies a patch adds his Signed-off-by.
* The person who finally commits the patch adds his/her
Signed-off-by, too (if it's not already there anyway).
* The Acked-by is completely separated from that. You send an Acked-by
when you think this patch can be committed.
You don't have to modify a patch for an Acked-by, you can just send
it to say "I think this patch is ok".
* If a certain version of a patch received two Acked-by's by two
different people, it can be committed.
Ergo, every commit message will have 1 or more Signed-off-by lines which
build a "chain of trust" for legal reasons, _and_ it will have 2 or more
Acked-by lines which enforce our review process.
* The Acked-by's must be for exactly the same version of the patch.
Acked-by's for previous versions of the patch are meaningless, they
are not added to the commit message, only those for the exact
incarnation of the patch which gets committed.
* So yes, it is possible to post
- A patch with only a Sign-off-by:
You modified the code, but don't want it to be committed, yet.
- A patch with a Signed-off-by and an Acked-by:
You modified the patch and you think it can be commited.
- An email with just an Acked-by:
You didn't touch the patch at all, but you think it can be committed.
http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de
http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the coreboot