| 1 |
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:16 PM Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Sign-off usually means "I have reviewed this commit and approve it". |
| 4 |
> This is how it works in the Linux kernel where one have to collect |
| 5 |
> sufficient number of sign-offs to pass commit in the main tree. An |
| 6 |
> attempt to give it another meaning like "I'm the author of this |
| 7 |
> commit" looks questionable. Of course DCO certification is fine as |
| 8 |
> well. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
In Linux kernel development signed-off-by has nothing to do with code |
| 12 |
reviews/approvals per se, and everything to do with the DCO. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Simply giving approval without certifying the DCO is done with the Acked-by tag. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Anybody in the process of forwarding the patch up to Linux has to |
| 19 |
append a Signed-off-by, because they're signing the DCO for that |
| 20 |
patch. A maintainer who isn't forwarding the patch would use |
| 21 |
Acked-by, since they didn't touch the patch and thus could not have |
| 22 |
introduced copyrightable changes. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives