[libvirt] [PATCH] HACKING: Introduce basic Signed-off-by politic
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> --- HACKING | 8 ++++++-- docs/hacking.html.in | 12 ++++++++---- 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING index f9f8381..e54e584 100644 --- a/HACKING +++ b/HACKING @@ -73,8 +73,12 @@ commit introduced the problem, mentioning that is useful. If the patch resolves a bugzilla report, mentioning the URL 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. +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 "Signed-off-by:" line to the commit +message automatically, you can tweak the git configuration: + + git config format.signoff true 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> +<pre> + git config format.signoff true +</pre> </li> <li><p>Split large changes into a series of smaller patches, -- 1.8.1.5
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:12:07PM +0200, 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@redhat.com> --- HACKING | 8 ++++++-- docs/hacking.html.in | 12 ++++++++---- 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING index f9f8381..e54e584 100644 --- a/HACKING +++ b/HACKING @@ -73,8 +73,12 @@ commit introduced the problem, mentioning that is useful. If the patch resolves a bugzilla report, mentioning the URL 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. +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 "Signed-off-by:" line to the commit +message automatically, you can tweak the git configuration: + + git config format.signoff true
I think if we're going todo this, we should be a bit more verbose. IOW, I'd suggest right near the start of the hacking file we basically copy the kernel's text on this matter [quote] To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on patches that are being emailed around. The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you can certify the below: Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I have the right to submit it under the open source license indicated in the file; or (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source license and I have the right under that license to submit that work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the same open source license (unless I am permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated in the file; or (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified it. (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are public and that a record of the contribution (including all personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with this project or the open source license(s) involved. then you just add a line saying Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org> using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.) [/quote] The kernel's docs also describe use of Acked-by, Tested-By and many other annotations, if we want to really take this approach fully. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
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
participants (3)
-
Daniel P. Berrange -
Michal Privoznik -
Viktor Mihajlovski