On 08/22/2013 02:12 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
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(a)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,
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