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  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]
Date:   Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:03:07 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <>
To:     Sean Christopherson <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>
        "Tobin C . Harding" <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Jani Nikula <>,
        Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <>,
        Jonathan Cameron <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Niklas Cassel <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements
 for Co-developed-by

On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 08:57 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> The documentation for Co-developed-by is a bit light on details, e.g. it
> doesn't explicitly state that:
>   - Multiple Co-developed-by tags are perfectly acceptable
>   - Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by must be paired together
>   - SOB ordering should still follow standard sign-off procedure
> Lack of explicit direction has resulted in developers taking a variety
> of approaches, often lacking any intent whatsoever, e.g. scattering SOBs
> willy-nilly, collecting them all at the end or the beginning, etc...
> Tweak the wording to make it clear that multiple co-authors are allowed,
> and document the expectation that standard sign-off procedures are to
> be followed.
> The use of "original author" has also led to confusion as many patches
> don't have just one "original" author, e.g. when multiple developers
> are involved from the genesis of the patch.  Remove all usage of
> "original" and instead call out that Co-developed-by is simply a way to
> provide attribution in addition to the From tag, i.e. neither tag is
> intended to imply anything with regard to who did what.
> Provide examples to (hopefully) eliminate any ambiguity.

Please add the checkpatch bit to this at the same time.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists