Does that mean:
Signed-off-by for binding +1 (from committer),
Reviewed-by for non-binding +1 (from volunteer)?
Sounds good to me.
--------------------------
Best regards,
R.C
________________________________________
From: Jan Hentschel <jan.hentsc...@ultratendency.com>
Sent: 21 November 2020 19:37
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying guidance around Signed-off-by in commit
messages
Also +1 for both suggestions as long as it is clear when to use which. Starting
point (after the discussion) probably would be to include it in our ref guide.
From: Wellington Chevreuil <wellington.chevre...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Date: Saturday, November 21, 2020 at 11:37 AM
To: dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying guidance around Signed-off-by in commit
messages
+1 for both suggestions ('Signed-off-by' and 'Reviewed-by');
Em sáb., 21 de nov. de 2020 às 00:15, Stack
<st...@duboce.net<mailto:st...@duboce.net>> escreveu:
Thanks for taking the time to do a write up Josh.
Looks good to me.
When Sean started in on the 'Signed-off-by:' I didn't get it (especially
after reading the git definition). Sean then set me straight explaining our
use is a bit of a perversion of the original. I notice his definition is
not in the refguide. Suggest a sentence preamble definition of
'Signed-off-by:' and that we intentionally are different from the
definition cited by Bharath.
I like the Bharath idea on 'Reviewed-by' too. We can talk up 'Reviewed-by'
credits as a way to earn standing in the community, of how they are given
weight evaluating whether to make a candidate a committer/PMC'er or not.
S
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 3:13 PM Josh Elser
<els...@apache.org<mailto:els...@apache.org>> wrote:
> On 11/20/20 1:07 PM, Bharath Vissapragada wrote:
> >> * All individuals mentioned in a sign-off*must* be capable of giving
a
> >> binding vote (i.e. they are an HBase committer)
> >>
> > It appears that the original intent
> > <
>
http://web.archive.org/web/20160507011446/http://gerrit.googlecode.com/svn/documentation/2.0/user-signedoffby.html<http://web.archive.org/web/20160507011446/http:/gerrit.googlecode.com/svn/documentation/2.0/user-signedoffby.html>
> >of
> > this sign-off feature in git mandates that the signing-off party to be
a
> > maintainer. So agree with you in theory. However, most times
> non-committers
> > also give great feedback and help with the code review process (code
> > reviews, testing, perf etc). I think acknowledging their contribution
in
> > some form would be nice and that encourages potential-future-committers
> to
> > actively review PRs IMO. So how about we annotate their names with
> > Reviewed-by tags? A related discussion
> > <https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2009-October/003036.html>
on a
> > different open source project has more tag definitions if we are
> interested
> > in taking that route.
> >
> > (I know you are only talking about the "signed-off by" tag but I
thought
> > this discussion would be relevant when documenting this in the dev
> > guidelines, hence bringing it up). What do you think?
>
> I would be happy with distinguishing Signed-off-by and Reviewed-by as a
> way to better track metrics on contributors who review others' code.
>
> Great idea!
>
