On 13 November 2013 12:06, Jordan Justen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Paul Berry <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 13 November 2013 11:01, Frank Henigman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I'd like to see an explanation of "signed-off-by," "reviewed-by" etc. > >> Maybe as simple as: > >> > >> "Use the tags signed-off-by, reviewed-by, tested-by, acked-by as for > linux > >> kernel patches > >> (see https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches)." > > > > > > That seems reasonable. Note, however, that Piglit doesn't consistently > use > > "signed-off-by": > > > > $ git log master | grep '^commit' | wc > > 4885 9770 234480 > > $ git log master | grep -i 'signed-off-by' | wc > > 1241 4969 70925 > > > > (If you'd like to encourage us to start using "signed-off-by" > consistently, > > I'm happy to have a policy discussion about that, but the discussion > should > > happen in its own email thread rather than here, so that more people will > > see it). > > What are the arguments against just following the kernel's > Signed-off-by practice? > > It can't be difficultly since 'git commit -s' makes this trivial. :) > > -Jordan >
I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way. I just wanted to make sure that if we decide to require it, the decision happens in the open rather than in the reply to a patch, where it might get missed by a lot of people.
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
