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

[ron minnich]

On 2/22/07, Uwe Hermann <uwe at hermann-uwe.de> 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 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).

And puts in the commit line from svn, e.g.
Commited revision 204


> >
> > * 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.
>
> No comments, no objections? Shall I update the wiki with this procedure
> and shall we use it from now on?
>
> I.e., you sign-off everything you touch or apply, you can ack your own
> patches, and any commit must get at least to acks (e.g. yours and that
> of one further developer).

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. There have
been some big patches lately that were in an undertermined state
because they got signed off, and acked, and never committed, and i
could not tell what had happened.

So if you have a thread, and you see signed-off and acked lines, but
no commit lines, you can assume the patch was not committed. Right
now, you just can not tell.

So if you signed off a patch, you are also going to ack it in the same
email in most cases; this seems a little weird to me, I just assumed
signed-off-by could apply acked-by, but I guess not?

thanks

ron