[U-Boot] [GIT PULL] Pull request: u-boot-staging

Igor Grinberg
2011-11-23T16:26:51Z

Hi Wolfgang, Stefano,

On 11/23/11 18:01, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Igor Grinberg,
>
> In message <4ECCB840.9050700@compulab.co.il> you wrote:
>>
>>> Because I am not the author of the patches, I do not add my Signed-off,
>>> and I do the same for u-boot-imx, where I am the custodian. As far as I
>>> know, all custodians are doing in the same way.
>>
>> I see... Is there a U-Boot policy regarding this somewhere?
>
> Nobody bothered yet to write down such a thing, so we all go on as we
> started some time in the past.
>
>> Because in Linux every person involved in pushing patches
>> should add an SOB to the commit message.
>
> The question is how you define "pushing".
> "Documentation/SubmittingPatches" says:
>
> | 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>
>
> (a) and (b) don't apply here, and (d) is not relevant in this context.
> So the question is if (c) applies, or not.

Well, I think yes (c) applies here and if you look into the Linux
git log, you will see that all patches applied by maintainers are
also signed by them.

>
>
> My personal point of view is that someone who just applies a patch
> (without any changes) from the mailing list or from PatchWork does not
> have to sign it.

This is perfectly fine. Should we have this written somewhere?
Or should we adopt the Linux version of SubmittingPatches in regard
to signing commits?

>
> If it were the other way round, I would have a problem for example
> when I use "git pull" or "git merge" to apply commits from a
> custodian's repository - neither "git pull" nor "git merge" provide
> ways to sign such an action - not to mention that then I would have to
> sign all included commits, too.

Right, and that is not done also in Linux - when Linus Torvalds pulls
stuff in, he *does not* sign it as well, because (c) *does not* apply
in this case, so you will _not_ have a problem.

>
>
> But maybe I'm just misinterpreting...

Well, if (c) really does not apply here, then probably you are
misinterpreting...

--
Regards,
Igor.