On Fri Jul 10, 2026 at 11:07 AM CEST, Mike Crowe wrote: > On Friday 10 July 2026 at 09:27:39 +0200, Yoann Congal wrote: >> On Thu Jul 9, 2026 at 9:33 PM CEST, Alex Kiernan wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 8:07 PM Mike Crowe via lists.openembedded.org >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I wasn't aware that I was expected to add one to the patch itself for a >> >> backport. >> >> >> >> https://docs.yoctoproject.org/scarthgap/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.html >> >> doesn't seem to say that a SoB should be added to the patch. It does say: >> >> >> >> | Of course, if another person later takes care of submitting this patch >> >> | upstream, the status should be changed to Submitted [where], and an >> >> | additional Signed-off-by: line should be added to the patch by the >> >> person >> >> | claiming responsibility for upstreaming. >> >> >> >> which sort of implies that a SoB should be added for original patches that >> >> are suitable for upstreaming but this patch is a backport which originated >> >> upstream (without a SoB) which isn't the same thing. >> >> >> >> Adding a SoB to an unmodified upstream backport patch feels like >> >> appropriation on my part, but I can do so if that's the policy. > >> > You're certifying that the patch you're submitting is appropriately >> > licensed; it says nothing about who authored it. > >> I agree with Alex: As the one requesting the backport, you are the one >> signing-off on this particular operation. The original author had >> nothing to do with that. > > I thought that I did that with the signed-off-by in the openembedded-core > commit message. > >> I created a bug to request clarification in the doc on this point: >> 16356 – Clarify trailers usage (Signed-off-by, ...) in imported patches >> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16356 > > Thanks. It feels like this needs an equivalent of > oe.qa.check_upstream_status(). Such a check would currently fail since > there are lots of existing patches that lack signed-off-bys and adding them > would be significant work because each one would need to be manually > checked. :( I suppose the check could also allow "Not-signed-off-by: > <[email protected]>" or similar as a workaround for > existing patches with a plan to eventually remove it as the patches are > updated.
We do have some kind of test in place, in patchtest: https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/tree/meta/lib/patchtest/tests/test_patch.py#n142 A proper check would be really hard to do without false-positive. > > v2 sent with signed-off-by in the patch. Thanks! That's appreciated :) > > Thanks. > > Mike. -- Yoann Congal Smile ECS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#240623): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/240623 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/120033783/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
