From: David Sommerseth References: <1456171763-44172-1-git-send-email-fish.thss@...277...> <20160225122928.GC24952@...1296...> <56CEF9E5.3090508@...2080...> Message-ID: <56D0496A.2050301@...2080...> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:47:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56CEF9E5.3090508@...2080...> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BjAlPA6BMLg15hkdl6mAgDKsnrSUA1EU2" Subject: Re: [Openvpn-devel] The puprose of the Signed-off-by: line Reply-To: openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, =?UTF-8?Q?Samuli_Sepp=c3=a4nen?= This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --BjAlPA6BMLg15hkdl6mAgDKsnrSUA1EU2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> The reason of adding the Signed-off-by is to have a better understanding >> of whom have been involved in particular commits/patches. While the >> "Author field" in the git log (git log --pretty=3Dfuller) can only have >> one name, more people can have been involved in the patch. Using the >> Signed-off-by is a way to credit them as well. >> >> And when everyone is consistent using the Signed-off-by line, writing >> tools which parses our git log is also far more easier. >> >> The other aspect of the Signed-off-by: line has to do with juridical >> stuff, to protect the OpenVPN project. By adding the Signed-off-by: >> line you basically sign-off to "Yes, I am the author of these changes >> and I am permitted to share them with the project". For more >> information, these pages explains it even better (same info, two >> different sources): >> >> >=20 > Hi David, >=20 > Looks like the rationale for Signed-off-by by is not properly documented = in Trac: >=20 > >=20 > David: do you want to integrate above explanation to Trac or shall I? I intended to update the wiki page as well. It should be updated. The trouble is that I started thinking. But I think we should do some more modifications to more of this process. There are two things I think we should agree upon first, which is slightly different compared to the wiki page. 1) It probably makes more sense to use Reviewed-by: instead of Signed-off-by: when someone have reviewed and not added code to the commit. 2) We should probably rethink the need of Signed-off-by: lines when Gert or I do commits without modifying the patch in any way. Whom committed the patch is now also easily accessible using the --pretty=3Dfuller argument to git log. And it should be an explicit note which states that the committer which adds a Signed-off-by: line to an unmodified commit does not mean the same as when a patch contributor does so. The committer's Signed-off-by: basically means "Yes, this patch has been accepted by N.N" ... That was the intention of this last Signed-off-by: line. If we drop the additional Signed-off-by: line, we are much closer to what other projects using Signed-off-by does. I know I'm the one to blame for all this, as I believe it was my initial suggestion. But that was many years ago; where both the git tool have improved vastly and the way git is used are nowadays somewhat more unified across projects then what it was around in 2010-ish. And I think we have all learned to use git far better over all these years as well. Thoughts? --=20 kind regards, David Sommerseth --=20 kind regards, David Sommerseth --BjAlPA6BMLg15hkdl6mAgDKsnrSUA1EU2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlbQSW0ACgkQDC186MBRfrquwgCgpBfGi/1UbM3tQ4VgM5rGESPV 6UsAoJfcLz9pM4MPUw1I3D5VQS967fmY =klyO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BjAlPA6BMLg15hkdl6mAgDKsnrSUA1EU2--