On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 21:27:01 +0100 Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> wrote:
> 12/03/2026 21:10, Stephen Hemminger: > > On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 19:56:25 +0100 > > Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 12/03/2026 19:54, Stephen Hemminger: > > > > Add Co-developed-by to the recognized tag pattern and tag > > > > sequence order in check-git-log.sh. > > > > > > Why using such tag? Signed-off-by is not enough? > > > > > > The tags were inherited from the kernel development process. > > > > Signed-off-by is the DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin) attestation. > > It says "I certify that I have the right to submit this code under the > > project's license. > > > > Co-developed-by explicitly marks someone as a co-author of the patch. > > Without it, there's only one author recorded in the git metadata. > > > > I just wanted check-git-log.sh to be quiet if it was used. > > > > The Co-developed-by is new, and probably came about because some people > > need/want to have their contributions recorded in the git statistics. > > Silly corporate overlords count contributions and it matters to them... > > > > PS: If DPDK was exactly following the kernel process, every time a patch > > was merged into a sub-tree > > it would get a Signed-off-by from a maintainer. Because the maintainer is > > validating that > > the submitter had the correct rights. > > True, but in DPDK we use SoB as an author or co-author mark > and it is well in line with the DCO. > > I know that we had some exceptions asking for Co-developed-by > because of a corporate ask, and I am on the side of being flexible. > But making it a part of our official process could make things confused > I think. Agree. Want to allow developers to use Co-developed-by but not suggest it or document it as required. Some people seem to want to use it.
