From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:42:23 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] U-Boot git usage model In-Reply-To: <20121015185524.965702029CD@gemini.denx.de> References: <20121010204054.6bca1ffc@lilith> <1349974486.6903.5@snotra> <20121011191658.43a0df72@lilith> <50770155.20700@wwwdotorg.org> <20121013191757.638D92029CF@gemini.denx.de> <507C3AA4.6050707@wwwdotorg.org> <20121015185524.965702029CD@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <507C833F.30409@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 10/15/2012 12:55 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Stephen Warren, > > In message <507C3AA4.6050707@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote: >> >> 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 > > I'm aware of this. > >> 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). > > Is such checking really taking place? Are there any tools to support > this? I've certainly seen people give feedback on patches that the appropriate S-o-b lines aren't present. I don't recall if I've explicitly seen anyone called out for not doing this during a merge (which most likely means there was never an issue, not that people weren't checking), so I can't say for 100% certain that everyone is doing this, but they certainly should be. git log is probably what I would use to validate this.