Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:35:39AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Tuesday October 9, sam@ravnborg.org wrote:
> > Hi Neil.
> > > 
> > >    From:        The Author, Primary Author, or Authors of the patch.
> > >                 Authors should also provide a Signed-off-by: tag.
> > > 
> > >                 Purpose: to give credit to authors
> > The SCM should include this info and we should not duplicate this
> > in the changelog's.
> > I know some tools require this format but that's something else.
> 
> If the SCM stores some tags in special places, that is fine with me.
> The remove the need for the tag and an understanding of why it exists.
> Can 'git' store a list of Authors?  Do we want to allow a list?
git stores to my best knowledge only a single author.
Infrequently we need a list but then people have solved it putting
relevant people in s-o-b and by give credit in changelog.
This is IMHO good enugh.

> 
> > 
> > > > +
> > > > +Signed-off-by:  A person adding a Signed-off-by tag is attesting that the
> > > > +		patch is, to the best of his or her knowledge, legally able
> > > > +		to be merged into the mainline and distributed under the
> > > > +		terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.  See
> > > > +		the Developer's Certificate of Origin, found in
> > > > +		Documentation/SubmittingPatches, for the precise meaning of
> > > > +		Signed-off-by.
> > > 
> > >                 Purpose: to allow subsequent review of the originality of 
> > >                 the contribution should copyright questions arise.
> > 
> > We often use s-o-b to docuemnt the path a patch took from origin (the
> > top-most s-o-b) to tree apply (lowest s-o-b).
> > This is IIUC part of the intended behaviour of s-o-b but it is not
> > clear from the above text.
> 
> My understanding of Andrew Morton's position on s-o-b is that it is an
> unordered set.  I know this because when I have sent him patches with
> a proper From: line, he has complained and begrudingly took the first
> s-o-b, but said he didn't like to.
> So there seems to be disagreement on this (I think it looks like a
> path to - but apparently not to everyone).
With the current definition you need to supply BOTH a from: and a s-o-b.
I usually request a s-o-b when it is missing no matter what other content 
is present in the changelog.

> 
> > 
> > 
> > > > +
> > > > +Acked-by:	The person named (who should be an active developer in the
> > > > +		area addressed by the patch) is aware of the patch and has
> > > > +		no objection to its inclusion.  An Acked-by tag does not
> > > > +		imply any involvement in the development of the patch or
> > > > +		that a detailed review was done.
> > > 
> > >                 Purpose:  to inform upstream aggregators that
> > > 		consensus was achieved for the change.  This is
> > > 		particularly relevant for changes that affect multiple
> > > 		Maintenance Domains.
> > > 
> > consensus seems too strong a wording here. consensus imply more than one
> > that agree on the patch where I often see people give their "Acked-by:" by
> > simple changelog reading.
> 
> I'm failing to follow your logic.
> You seem to be contrasting:
>   "consensus imply more than one that agree"
>      which I agree with:  "From" plus all "Acked-By" will be more than
>      one in all cases that "Acked-By" is used
I did not realise that "concensus" in this context refered to both the
one that give the "Acked-by" and the author.
Viewing it this way I agree with the intent and the text.

	Sam