With the rising number of signed-off patches appearing on the list, we should have policy what signed-off means, and advice (enforce?) contributors to use it.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> --- diff --git a/docs/hacking.html.in b/docs/hacking.html.in index 543c77e..f1a5c59 100644 --- a/docs/hacking.html.in +++ b/docs/hacking.html.in @@ -78,10 +78,14 @@ of the bug number is useful; but also summarize the issue rather than making all readers follow the link. You can use 'git shortlog -30' to get an idea of typical summary lines. - Libvirt does not currently attach any meaning to - Signed-off-by: lines, so it is up to you if you want to - include or omit them in the commit message. - </p> + Moreover, you should sign off your patches, meaning you are the + original author(s) of them and you have right to submit them under + the open source license indicated in the file. To add the + <code>Signed-off-by:</code> line to the commit message automatically, + you can tweak the git configuration: </p> In fact there's also the case where you can have multiple sign-offs,
On 08/22/2013 02:12 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote: that of the original author and then of persons that have reworked the original patch. I use that typically to indicate that I have been rebasing, have edited the commit message or applied changes resulting from review comments when I send out patches originating from a colleague. I.e. roughly similar to the subsystem maintainer policy used by the kernel folks. So that should be allow too IMHO. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Kind Regards Viktor Mihajlovski IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Köderitz Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294