From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36351) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwFHm-00053v-Dy for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 13:31:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwFHk-0005hz-5i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 13:31:38 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171]:35425) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwFHj-0005hf-VI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 13:31:36 -0400 Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id dn14so5848879obc.16 for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:31:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Anthony Liguori In-Reply-To: References: <1372930249-22916-1-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com> <87bo6ddu6k.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <51DAD155.3010106@suse.de> <8761wl3wp6.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:31:32 -0500 Message-ID: <87fvvp3qmj.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Paul Durrant , Stefano Stabellini , Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= Stefano Stabellini writes: > On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Andreas F=C3=A4rber writes: >>=20 >> Right, it goes: >>=20 >> 1) Acked-by: >>=20 >> I haven't reviewed the code in detail but the general idea seems sane. >>=20 >> 2) Reviewed-by: >>=20 >> The general idea seems sane, and I have done a thorough review of the >> patch in question. >>=20 >> 3) Signed-off-by: >>=20 >> All of the above, plus I have ensured that the code is of good quality, >> does not break things, and the other things expected of a maintainer. >> This is considered to be a legally binding statement too based on the >> DCO so be aware of that and ensure you have the right approval to make >> such a statement. > > I don't think that is a good idea to mix up DCO with reviewing > patches. It's all a question of patch origin and accounting. DCO is just one part of it. > In fact in the Linux community I think that it's pretty clear that > Signed-off-by doesn't mean anything other than "at least a portion of > the changes have been done by me and I am the Copyright owner of > them". No, it also means: "I can certify that the person who provided the patch to me has the appropriate rights to submit the patch." See section (c) of the DCO. It's about establishing a chain of custody. I'm not making any kind of judgement when I merge a pull request from you because you've told me (by adding your Signed-off-by) that all of the code is of appropriate origin. Of course, if you are not also saying that the code is of high quality and does what it's described too, I don't really care about the code origin in the first place :-) So this is an important part of it too. Anyone can add a Signed-off-by. There's no requirement on authorship. It's just not all that useful outside of a maintainership context. If you cherry pick someone's patch from the mailing list and add it to your series, you should add a Signed-off-by to it even though you aren't necessarily the maintainer of the area. > For example Alice writes a patch and goes away, Bob takes it, rewrites > most of it and then sends it upstream. The patch has Alice and Bob > Signed-off-by but Alice might not even read Bob's patch. The ordering of Signed-off-by has significance. In this case, Alice did not Signed-off-by Bob's changes and that's expressed in the ordering. Regards, Anthony Liguori