[U-Boot] U-Boot git usage model

[Stephen Warren]

On 10/11/2012 11:16 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> 
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:54:46 -0500, Scott Wood
> <scottwood at freescale.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/10/2012 01:40:54 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>>>>> Re committer identity, I don't see the relationship with "by"  
>>> tags, and
>>>>> especially with Singed-off-by, since the sign-off is not and must  
>>> not
>>>>> be related to the committer of the patch, but to its author(s).
>>>>
>>>> At least the way the Linux kernel uses the tag, both the original  
>>> author
>>>> of the patch /and/ anyone who applies the patch, cherry-picks the  
>>> patch,
>>>> ... must add their S-o-b line. I think U-Boot isn't using that part  
>>> of
>>>> the model.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. IIUC, U-Boot's "Signed-off-by" is supposed to mean "I
>>> am (one of) the autor(s) of this patch".
>>
>> Is this documented anywhere?
>>
>> http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/DevelopmentProcess says, "U-Boot has  
>> adopted the Linux kernel signoff policy".
> 
> Please do read the Linux kernel signoff policy as laid out in
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Branch or subsystem maintainers should
> add their Signed-off-by only if they made modifications to the original
> patch in the process of applying it.

That's certainly not what I understand from reading that document. Can
you please point out the part the states that policy?

(The part I think you may be talking about is that when you edit a
patch, it is polite to add a note indicating what you changed *in
addition* to adding your Signed-off-by tag):

Quoting that doc:

> If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly
> modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not
> exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to
> rule (c), you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally
> counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust
> the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and
> make him endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it is recommended that
> you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating
> the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it
> seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all
> enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that
> you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example :
> 
>         Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random at developer.example.org>
>         [lucky at maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h]
>         Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky at maintainer.example.org>

and in particular, the following parts of that doc is what tells me that
committers should always add S-o-b even if the commit didn't change:

>         Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
> 
>         By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
...
>         (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
>             person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
>             it.

> The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
> development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.