From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: Question about commit message conventions Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:23:51 +0200 Message-ID: <453F8187.9060208@op5.se> References: <200610241549.48238.t.toedter@gmx.net> <20061024140856.GH5639@harddisk-recovery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Tobias Toedter , git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913) In-Reply-To: <20061024140856.GH5639@harddisk-recovery.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gckbn-0004mJ-2i for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:23:59 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030470AbWJYPXz (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:23:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030473AbWJYPXz (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:23:55 -0400 Received: from linux-server1.op5.se ([193.201.96.2]:18630 "EHLO smtp-gw1.op5.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030470AbWJYPXz (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:23:55 -0400 Received: by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix, from userid 588) id EA4C16BD05; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:23:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (unknown [213.88.215.14]) by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D2B6BCF0; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:23:51 +0200 (CEST) To: Erik Mouw Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Erik Mouw wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:49:44PM +0200, Tobias Toedter wrote: > >> On the other hand, concerning the approval of other developers, what's the >> difference between "Signed-off-by:" and "Acked-by:"? Are there any >> more "*-by:" fields that are in use? > > Acked-by is usually used when someone (not the upstream maintainer the > patch was send to) agrees with the patch. I.e.: (s)he says the content > of the patch is OK without actually acknowledging something about the > right to submit. > If you sift through the Linux kernel, you will find numerous patches where subsystem maintainers have acked patches sent to them. I *think* this usually means that they have reviewed the patch and approve of it, but not modified it. The Ack is then solely for Linus' benefits and tells him that at least one pair of eyes have already gone over the patch. Subsys maintainers sometimes also add Signed-off-by: lines, which I assume means they have tweaked the patch somewhat or somehow collaborated with the author in producing it. I know Junio signs off patches he modifies, and I'm guessing this habit is inherited from the kernel workflow which was most likely encouraged by Linus when he was the Git maintainer. Lots of guesswork here, but in a sane world I can't be too far off the mark ;-) -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se