From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263380AbUEWTEI (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 15:04:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263419AbUEWTEH (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 15:04:07 -0400 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([69.30.125.51]:26765 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263380AbUEWTBn (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 15:01:43 -0400 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 12:01:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com To: Linus Torvalds cc: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 22 May 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The plan is to make this very light-weight, and to fit in with how we > already pass patches around - just add the sign-off to the end of the > explanation part of the patch. That sign-off would be just a single line > at the end (possibly after _other_ peoples sign-offs), saying: > > Signed-off-by: Random J Developer > > To keep the rules as simple as possible, and yet making it clear what it > means to sign off on the patch, I've been discussing a "Developer's > Certificate of Origin" with a random collection of other kernel > developers (mainly subsystem maintainers). This would basically be what > a developer (or a maintainer that passes through a patch) signs up for > when he signs off, so that the downstream (upstream?) developers know > that it's all ok: > > Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.0 > > By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: > > (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I > have the right to submit it under the open source license > indicated in the file; or > > (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best > of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source > license and I have the right under that license to submit that > work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part > by me, under the same open source license (unless I am > permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated > in the file; or > > (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other > person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified > it. Andrew already puts the "From:" thing in the patch comment, so this should be simply a matter of replacing "From:" with "Signed-off-by:", preserving it in logs, and documenting the thing in the patch submission doc. No? - Davide