[U-Boot] U-Boot git usage model

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi Stephen,

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:26:45 -0600, Stephen Warren
<swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:

> 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.

My bad. I've indeed misread the Linux doc. However, the U-Boot doc is
clearly on the side of "no Signed-off-by from custodians".

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.