[libvirt] [PATCH] HACKING: Introduce basic Signed-off-by politic

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:12:07PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> With the rising number of signed-off patches appearing on the list,
> we should have policy what signed-off means, and advice (enforce?)
> contributors to use it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn at redhat.com>
> ---
>  HACKING              |  8 ++++++--
>  docs/hacking.html.in | 12 ++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING
> index f9f8381..e54e584 100644
> --- a/HACKING
> +++ b/HACKING
> @@ -73,8 +73,12 @@ commit introduced the problem, mentioning that is useful. If the patch
>  resolves a bugzilla report, mentioning the URL of the bug number is useful;
>  but also summarize the issue rather than making all readers follow the link.
>  You can use 'git shortlog -30' to get an idea of typical summary lines.
> -Libvirt does not currently attach any meaning to Signed-off-by: lines, so it
> -is up to you if you want to include or omit them in the commit message.
> +Moreover, you should sign off your patches, meaning you are the original
> +author(s) of them and you have right to submit them under the open source
> +license indicated in the file. To add the "Signed-off-by:" line to the commit
> +message automatically, you can tweak the git configuration:
> +
> +  git config format.signoff true

I think if we're going todo this, we should be a bit more verbose. IOW,
I'd suggest right near the start of the hacking file we basically copy
the kernel's text on this matter


[quote]
To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can
percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several
layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on
patches that are being emailed around.

The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the
patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
pass it on as an open-source patch.  The rules are pretty simple: if you
can certify the below:

        Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

        By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

        (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
            have the right to submit it under the open source license
            indicated in the file; or

        (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
            of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
            license and I have the right under that license to submit that
            work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
            by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
            permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
            in the file; or

        (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
            person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
            it.

        (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
            are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
            personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
            maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
            this project or the open source license(s) involved.

then you just add a line saying

        Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random at developer.example.org>

using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
[/quote]


The kernel's docs also describe  use of Acked-by, Tested-By and
many other annotations, if we want to really take this approach
fully.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|