From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:32:36 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] U-Boot git usage model In-Reply-To: <20121013191757.638D92029CF@gemini.denx.de> References: <20121010204054.6bca1ffc@lilith> <1349974486.6903.5@snotra> <20121011191658.43a0df72@lilith> <50770155.20700@wwwdotorg.org> <20121013191757.638D92029CF@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <507C3AA4.6050707@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 10/13/2012 01:17 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Stephen Warren, > > In message <50770155.20700@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote: >> >> and in particular, the following parts of that doc is what tells me that >> committers should always add S-o-b even if the commit didn't change: >> >>> Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 >>> >>> By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: >> ... >>> (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other >>> person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified >>> it. > > No, I think you misinterpret this ;-) > > This is intended for cases where the original author of the patch > shall remain unknown for whatever reasons. Consider some bigger > companies doing a lot of their actual development in low-cost > countries (say, China). They usually have a ton of developers > workignon such stuff, and only one (or very few) people who > "interface" ith the community. It is these interface-guys who will > add their SoB based on above rule, meaning: yes, I can certify that > this is Open Source, and even though the original author shall remain > unnamed this can be used freely in this context. Irrespective of the documentation (which I obviously read the way I describe anyway...), the kernel practice is that everyone who writes or commits a patch adds their S-o-b line, and everyone who simply merges a branch from someone else checks that the provider of the branch added their S-o-b to patches they applied (rather than merged themselves) but does not add their own S-o-b (because it's impossible). I have often wondered why the merge commits themselves were not signed off by the person performing the merge (which would then logically cover all the commits that got merged). I haven't investigated to find out why though. Doing so would seem to solve your objection about merges.