Documentation/user-signedoffby.txt - gerrit.git - Git at Google

 :linkattrs:
 = Gerrit Code Review - Signed-off-by Lines

 [NOTE]
 This document was literally taken from link:http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/SubmittingPatches;hb=4e8a2372f9255a1464ef488ed925455f53fbdaa1[linux-2.6 Documentation/SubmittingPatches,role=external,window=_blank]
 and is covered by the GPLv2.

 [[Signed-off-by]]
 == Signed-off-by:

 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 a 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@developer.example.org>
 ----

 using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)

 Some people also put extra tags at the end.  They'll just be ignored for
 now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
 point out some special detail about the sign-off.

 If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly
 modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not
 exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to
 rule (c), you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally
 counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust
 the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and
 make him endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it is recommended that
 you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating
 the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it
 seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all
 enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that
 you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example :

 ----
 	Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
 	[lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h]
 	Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky@maintainer.example.org>
 ----

 This practice is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and
 want at the same time to credit the author, track changes, merge the fix,
 and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances
 can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one
 which appears in the changelog.

 [[Acked-by]]
 [[Cc]]
 == Acked-by:, Cc:

 The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
 development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.

 If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
 patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
 arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.

 Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
 maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.

 Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
 has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch
 mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
 into an Acked-by:.

 Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgment of the entire patch.
 For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
 one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgment of just
 the part which affects that maintainer's code.  Judgment should be used here.
 When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
 list archives.

 If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
 provided such comments, you may optionally add a "Cc:" tag to the patch.
 This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
 person it names.  This tag documents that potentially interested parties
 have been included in the discussion


 [[Reported-by]]
 [[Tested-by]]
 [[Reviewed-by]]
 == Reported-by:, Tested-by: and Reviewed-by:

 If this patch fixes a problem reported by somebody else, consider adding a
 Reported-by: tag to credit the reporter for their contribution.  Please
 note that this tag should not be added without the reporter's permission,
 especially if the problem was not reported in a public forum.  That said,
 if we diligently credit our bug reporters, they will, hopefully, be
 inspired to help us again in the future.

 A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
 some environment) by the person named.  This tag informs maintainers that
 some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for
 future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.

 Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
 acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:

 ----
 	Reviewer's statement of oversight

 	By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:

  	 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
 	     evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
 	     the mainline kernel.

 	 (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
 	     have been communicated back to the submitter.  I am satisfied
 	     with the submitter's response to my comments.

 	 (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this
 	     submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a
 	     worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known
 	     issues which would argue against its inclusion.

 	 (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
 	     do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any
 	     warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated
 	     purpose or function properly in any given situation.
 ----

 A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
 appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious
 technical issues.  Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can
 offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch.  This tag serves to give credit to
 reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been
 done on the patch.  Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
 understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
 increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.

 GERRIT
 ------
 Part of link:index.html[Gerrit Code Review]

 SEARCHBOX
 ---------
	:linkattrs:
	= Gerrit Code Review - Signed-off-by Lines

	[NOTE]
	This document was literally taken from link:http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/SubmittingPatches;hb=4e8a2372f9255a1464ef488ed925455f53fbdaa1[linux-2.6 Documentation/SubmittingPatches,role=external,window=_blank]
	and is covered by the GPLv2.

	[[Signed-off-by]]
	== Signed-off-by:

	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 a 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@developer.example.org>
	----

	using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)

	Some people also put extra tags at the end. They'll just be ignored for
	now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
	point out some special detail about the sign-off.

	If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly
	modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not
	exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to
	rule (c), you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally
	counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust
	the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and
	make him endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it is recommended that
	you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating
	the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it
	seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all
	enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that
	you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example :

	----
	Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
	[lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h]
	Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky@maintainer.example.org>
	----

	This practice is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and
	want at the same time to credit the author, track changes, merge the fix,
	and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances
	can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one
	which appears in the changelog.

	[[Acked-by]]
	[[Cc]]
	== Acked-by:, Cc:

	The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
	development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.

	If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
	patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
	arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.

	Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
	maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.

	Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker
	has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch
	mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
	into an Acked-by:.

	Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgment of the entire patch.
	For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
	one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgment of just
	the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgment should be used here.
	When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
	list archives.

	If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
	provided such comments, you may optionally add a "Cc:" tag to the patch.
	This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
	person it names. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
	have been included in the discussion


	[[Reported-by]]
	[[Tested-by]]
	[[Reviewed-by]]
	== Reported-by:, Tested-by: and Reviewed-by:

	If this patch fixes a problem reported by somebody else, consider adding a
	Reported-by: tag to credit the reporter for their contribution. Please
	note that this tag should not be added without the reporter's permission,
	especially if the problem was not reported in a public forum. That said,
	if we diligently credit our bug reporters, they will, hopefully, be
	inspired to help us again in the future.

	A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
	some environment) by the person named. This tag informs maintainers that
	some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for
	future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.

	Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
	acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:

	----
	Reviewer's statement of oversight

	By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:

	(a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
	evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
	the mainline kernel.

	(b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
	have been communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied
	with the submitter's response to my comments.

	(c) While there may be things that could be improved with this
	submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a
	worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known
	issues which would argue against its inclusion.

	(d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
	do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any
	warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated
	purpose or function properly in any given situation.
	----

	A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
	appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious
	technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can
	offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to
	reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been
	done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
	understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
	increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.

	GERRIT
	------
	Part of link:index.html[Gerrit Code Review]

	SEARCHBOX
	---------