linux-kernel - Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071009174433.GB25750@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:44:33 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

Hi Neil.
> 
>    From:        The Author, Primary Author, or Authors of the patch.
>                 Authors should also provide a Signed-off-by: tag.
> 
>                 Purpose: to give credit to authors
The SCM should include this info and we should not duplicate this
in the changelog's.
I know some tools require this format but that's something else.

> > +
> > +Signed-off-by:  A person adding a Signed-off-by tag is attesting that the
> > +		patch is, to the best of his or her knowledge, legally able
> > +		to be merged into the mainline and distributed under the
> > +		terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.  See
> > +		the Developer's Certificate of Origin, found in
> > +		Documentation/SubmittingPatches, for the precise meaning of
> > +		Signed-off-by.
> 
>                 Purpose: to allow subsequent review of the originality of 
>                 the contribution should copyright questions arise.

We often use s-o-b to docuemnt the path a patch took from origin (the
top-most s-o-b) to tree apply (lowest s-o-b).
This is IIUC part of the intended behaviour of s-o-b but it is not
clear from the above text.


> > +
> > +Acked-by:	The person named (who should be an active developer in the
> > +		area addressed by the patch) is aware of the patch and has
> > +		no objection to its inclusion.  An Acked-by tag does not
> > +		imply any involvement in the development of the patch or
> > +		that a detailed review was done.
> 
>                 Purpose:  to inform upstream aggregators that
> 		consensus was achieved for the change.  This is
> 		particularly relevant for changes that affect multiple
> 		Maintenance Domains.
> 
consensus seems too strong a wording here. consensus imply more than one
that agree on the patch where I often see people give their "Acked-by:" by
simple changelog reading.
So Acked-by: is not used like documented today.

	Sam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/