From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <[email protected]>
Initial large code submissions typically are not accepted
on their first patch submission. The developers are
typically given feedback and at times some developers may
even submit changes to the original authors for integration
into their second submission attempt.
Developers wishing to contribute changes to the evolution
of a second patch submission must supply their own Siged-off-by
tag to the original authors and must submit their changes
on a public mailing list or ensure that these submission
are recorded somewhere publicly.
To date a few of these type of contributors have expressed
different preferences for whether or not their own SOB tag
should be used for a second code submission. Lets keep things
simple and only require the contributor's SOB tag if so desired
explicitly. It is not technically required if there already
is a public record of their contribution somewhere.
Document this on Documentation/SubmittingPatches
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 15 +++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index c379a2a..e018043 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -366,6 +366,21 @@ and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances
can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one
which appears in the changelog.
+If you are submitting a large change (for example a new driver) at times
+you may be asked to make quite a lot of modifications prior to getting
+your change accepted. At times you may even receive patches from developers
+who not only wish to tell you what you should change to get your changes
+upstream but actually send you patches. If those patches were made publicly
+and they do contain a Singed-off-by tag you are not expected to provide
+their own Singed-off-by tag on the second iteration of the patch so long
+as there is a public record somewhere that can be used to show the
+contributor had sent their changes with their own Singed-off-by tag.
+
+If you receive patches privately during development you may want to
+ask for these patches to be re-posted publicly or you can also decide
+to merge the patches as part of a separate historical git tree that
+will remain online for historical archiving.
+
Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practise
to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit
message (just after the subject line) to facilitate tracking. For instance,
--
1.7.10.4
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<[email protected]> wrote:
> of a second patch submission must supply their own Siged-off-by
Signed-off-by
> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -366,6 +366,21 @@ and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances
> can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one
> which appears in the changelog.
>
> +If you are submitting a large change (for example a new driver) at times
> +you may be asked to make quite a lot of modifications prior to getting
> +your change accepted. At times you may even receive patches from developers
> +who not only wish to tell you what you should change to get your changes
> +upstream but actually send you patches. If those patches were made publicly
> +and they do contain a Singed-off-by tag you are not expected to provide
Signed-off-by
> +their own Singed-off-by tag on the second iteration of the patch so long
idem
> +as there is a public record somewhere that can be used to show the
> +contributor had sent their changes with their own Singed-off-by tag.
ditto
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> of a second patch submission must supply their own Siged-off-by
>
> Signed-off-by
will send a v2.
Luis
On 10/08/12 06:51, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <[email protected]>
>
> Initial large code submissions typically are not accepted
> on their first patch submission. The developers are
> typically given feedback and at times some developers may
> even submit changes to the original authors for integration
> into their second submission attempt.
>
> Developers wishing to contribute changes to the evolution
> of a second patch submission must supply their own Siged-off-by
> tag to the original authors and must submit their changes
> on a public mailing list or ensure that these submission
> are recorded somewhere publicly.
>
> To date a few of these type of contributors have expressed
> different preferences for whether or not their own SOB tag
> should be used for a second code submission. Lets keep things
> simple and only require the contributor's SOB tag if so desired
> explicitly. It is not technically required if there already
> is a public record of their contribution somewhere.
>
> Document this on Documentation/SubmittingPatches
>
> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> index c379a2a..e018043 100644
> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -366,6 +366,21 @@ and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances
> can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one
> which appears in the changelog.
>
> +If you are submitting a large change (for example a new driver) at times
> +you may be asked to make quite a lot of modifications prior to getting
> +your change accepted.
This applies to any patch, not just large ones and/or drivers.
> At times you may even receive patches from developers
> +who not only wish to tell you what you should change to get your changes
> +upstream but actually send you patches.
This sentence is long and confusing. Perhaps something like: "Other
developers may send patches to show what changes should be made, rather
than just making comments".
> If those patches were made publicly
> +and they do contain a Singed-off-by tag you are not expected to provide
> +their own Singed-off-by tag on the second iteration of the patch so long
> +as there is a public record somewhere that can be used to show the
> +contributor had sent their changes with their own Singed-off-by tag.
If another developer sends a patch with a Signed-off-by, regardless of
whether it is a patch against mainline, or a patch on top of a patch,
why would you not be required to keep the Signed-off-by tag? Does this
mean that I can review somebodies else's patch, send them a patch on top
of it with my Signed-off-by, and they can simply drop it and take my
work uncredited?
If a developer wants to provided patches on top of someone else's work,
but does not want to be credited with a Signed-off-by, then surely they
should just not sign-off their patch?
You also misspelled "Signed-of-by" several times.
> +
> +If you receive patches privately during development you may want to
> +ask for these patches to be re-posted publicly or you can also decide
> +to merge the patches as part of a separate historical git tree that
> +will remain online for historical archiving.
I don't think this necessarily needs to be stated. Lots of patches,
especially drivers, have probably had several authors, but only require
the sign-off of the person doing the actual submission. So the rules
should be (IMHO):
1) The person submitting the code must sign the patch off.
2) If another person contributes to the code, whether during
development, or as part of a review, then they should have
a Signed-off-by tag applied only if they provide one.
3) Signed-off-by tags (all tags really) should never be added
without the express permission of the person themselves.
If additional credit needs to be given, but the creditor doesn't want to
provide a Signed-off-by then one of the other tags could be used (such
as Reviewed-by), or the person could be mentioned in the changelog
perhaps? e.g:
"Parts of the foo function provided by Joe Bloggs <[email protected]>"
~Ryan
I think it would be nice to have another tag for people who fix bugs
in the original patch. The Reviewed-by tag implies approval of the
whole patch and anyway reviewers don't normally comment unless they
see a bug. Maybe something like:
Contributor: Your Name <[email protected]>
So the tags for developers would be:
Signed-off-by: The patch went through you. Legal responsibility.
Acked-by: You know what you are talking about and approve.
Reviewed-by: You reviewed the patch and approve.
Contributor: You noticed or fixed a bug in the patch.
regards,
dan carpenter