References: <1456171763-44172-1-git-send-email-fish.thss@...277...> <20160225122928.GC24952@...1296...> <56CEF9E5.3090508@...2080...> <56D0496A.2050301@...2080...> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Samuli_Sepp=c3=a4nen?= Message-ID: <56D3FE0D.5010107@...515...> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:15:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56D0496A.2050301@...2080...> Subject: Re: [Openvpn-devel] The puprose of the Signed-off-by: line List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> 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): >>> >>> >> >> Hi David, >> >> Looks like the rationale for Signed-off-by by is not properly documented= in Trac: >> >> >> >> 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. Makes sense. > 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. Indeed: commit 5f5229e41d134b659e502bb2597c711aedaf8096 Author: Leonardo Basilio AuthorDate: Wed Feb 10 11:19:39 2016 +0100 Commit: Gert Doering CommitDate: Wed Feb 10 11:19:39 2016 +0100 Correctly report TCP connection timeout on windows. ---snip--- Let's scrap the Signed-off-by lines except when actual changes have been=20 made. > 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. The difference between Acked-by and Reviewed-by seems to be the=20 completeness of the review: "Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgment of the entire=20 patch. For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an=20 Acked-by: from one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates=20 acknowledgment of just the part which affects that maintainer=92s code." "A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an=20 appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious=20 technical issues." These quotes are from We've typically been using Acked-by for acknowledging the full patch,=20 where we could have used Reviewed-by. And we've essentially used the=20 committers Signed-off-by in place of Acked-by, if I'm not mistaken. > If we drop the additional Signed-off-by: line, we are much closer to > what other projects using Signed-off-by does. Sounds good to me. They make little sense because of "--pretty=3Dfuller". > 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. +1 for following / trying to follow the instructions given here: The tags (e.g. Signed-off-by) are not being used for analysis purposes,=20 so this change of practice will not break anything. --=20 Samuli Sepp=E4nen Community Manager OpenVPN Technologies, Inc irc freenode net: mattock