{"thread":{"id":"6037","subject":"Question about commit message conventions","startedAt":"2006-10-24T13:49:44Z","lastAt":"2006-10-25T18:48:58Z","messageCount":6,"participants":["Tobias Toedter","Jakub Narebski","Erik Mouw","Junio C Hamano","Andreas Ericsson"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"29859","messageId":"200610241549.48238.t.toedter@gmx.net","threadId":"6037","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Question about commit message conventions","fromName":"Tobias Toedter","fromEmail":"t.toedter@gmx.net","sentAt":"2006-10-24T13:49:44Z","receivedAt":"2006-10-24T13:49:44Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"t.toedter@gmx.net","avatar":null},"body":"Hi,\n\nalthough I've read the documentation of git very carefully, I could not find \nanything related to certain commit message conventions. It would be great \nif someone here could explain a few things, maybe this could be added to \nthe wiki afterwards ().\n\nFirst of all, what's the intended use of the \"Signed-off-by:\" lines? Does it \nmake sense to add my name there, even when I'm listed as the author or \ncommitter of a commit? I thought that they are intended mostly to note the \napproval of other developers.\n\nOn the other hand, concerning the approval of other developers, what's the \ndifference between \"Signed-off-by:\" and \"Acked-by:\"? Are there any \nmore \"*-by:\" fields that are in use?\n\nRegards,\nTobias\n\n-- \nTobias Toedter | \"I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people\nHamburg, Germany | like me as members.\" -- Groucho Marx\n"},{"id":"29860","messageId":"ehl6n6$6jn$1@sea.gmane.org","threadId":"6037","inReplyTo":"200610241549.48238.t.toedter@gmx.net","subject":"Re: Question about commit message conventions","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-10-24T14:08:02Z","receivedAt":"2006-10-24T14:08:02Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Tobias Toedter wrote:\n\n> Hi,\n> \n> although I've read the documentation of git very carefully, I could not find \n> anything related to certain commit message conventions. It would be great \n> if someone here could explain a few things, maybe this could be added to \n> the wiki afterwards ().\n> \n> First of all, what's the intended use of the \"Signed-off-by:\" lines? Does it \n> make sense to add my name there, even when I'm listed as the author or \n> committer of a commit? I thought that they are intended mostly to note the \n> approval of other developers.\n> \n> On the other hand, concerning the approval of other developers, what's the \n> difference between \"Signed-off-by:\" and \"Acked-by:\"? Are there any \n> more \"*-by:\" fields that are in use?\n\n>From Documentation/SubmittingPatches:\n\n(6) Sign your work\n[...]\nThe sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for\nthe patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have\nthe right to pass it on as a open-source patch.\n\n\n\"Acked-by:\" is used to notify that patch was accepted by somebody,\nwhich usually is maintainer of part affected by patch.\n\nI have seen exactly on \"Cheered-on-by:\", and there are probably some\n\"Noticed-by:\" there.\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nWarsaw, Poland\nShadeHawk on #git\n"},{"id":"29861","messageId":"20061024140856.GH5639@harddisk-recovery.com","threadId":"6037","inReplyTo":"200610241549.48238.t.toedter@gmx.net","subject":"Re: Question about commit message conventions","fromName":"Erik Mouw","fromEmail":"erik@harddisk-recovery.com","sentAt":"2006-10-24T14:08:56Z","receivedAt":"2006-10-24T14:08:56Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"erik@harddisk-recovery.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:49:44PM +0200, Tobias Toedter wrote:\n> although I've read the documentation of git very carefully, I could not find \n> anything related to certain commit message conventions. It would be great \n> if someone here could explain a few things, maybe this could be added to \n> the wiki afterwards ().\n> \n> First of all, what's the intended use of the \"Signed-off-by:\" lines? Does it \n> make sense to add my name there, even when I'm listed as the author or \n> committer of a commit? I thought that they are intended mostly to note the \n> approval of other developers.\n\nSee Documentation/SubmittingPatches. You basically say you have the\nright to submit the patch.\n\n> On the other hand, concerning the approval of other developers, what's the \n> difference between \"Signed-off-by:\" and \"Acked-by:\"? Are there any \n> more \"*-by:\" fields that are in use?\n\nAcked-by is usually used when someone (not the upstream maintainer the\npatch was send to) agrees with the patch. I.e.: (s)he says the content\nof the patch is OK without actually acknowledging something about the\nright to submit.\n\n\nErik\n\n-- \n+-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --\n| Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands\n"},{"id":"29862","messageId":"200610241614.07030.t.toedter@gmx.net","threadId":"6037","inReplyTo":"ehl6n6$6jn$1@sea.gmane.org","subject":"Re: Question about commit message conventions","fromName":"Tobias Toedter","fromEmail":"t.toedter@gmx.net","sentAt":"2006-10-24T14:14:01Z","receivedAt":"2006-10-24T14:14:01Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"t.toedter@gmx.net","avatar":null},"body":"On Tuesday 24 October 2006 16:08, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n> Tobias Toedter wrote:\n> > although I've read the documentation of git very carefully\n[...] \n> From Documentation/SubmittingPatches:\n\nD'oh! Thanks.\n\nRegards,\nTobias\n\n-- \nTobias Toedter | \"I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people\nHamburg, Germany | like me as members.\" -- Groucho Marx\n"},{"id":"296030","messageId":"453F8187.9060208@op5.se","threadId":"6037","inReplyTo":"20061024140856.GH5639@harddisk-recovery.com","subject":"Re: Question about commit message conventions","fromName":"Andreas Ericsson","fromEmail":"ae@op5.se","sentAt":"2006-10-25T15:23:51Z","receivedAt":"2006-10-25T15:23:51Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ae@op5.se","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/426e89595c75a8f5252dd0c989e5fabe5bcac616e68557427ad9aef6b0ca342a?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Erik Mouw wrote:\n> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:49:44PM +0200, Tobias Toedter wrote:\n> \n>> On the other hand, concerning the approval of other developers, what's the \n>> difference between \"Signed-off-by:\" and \"Acked-by:\"? Are there any \n>> more \"*-by:\" fields that are in use?\n> \n> Acked-by is usually used when someone (not the upstream maintainer the\n> patch was send to) agrees with the patch. I.e.: (s)he says the content\n> of the patch is OK without actually acknowledging something about the\n> right to submit.\n> \n\nIf you sift through the Linux kernel, you will find numerous patches \nwhere subsystem maintainers have acked patches sent to them. I *think* \nthis usually means that they have reviewed the patch and approve of it, \nbut not modified it. The Ack is then solely for Linus' benefits and \ntells him that at least one pair of eyes have already gone over the patch.\n\nSubsys maintainers sometimes also add Signed-off-by: lines, which I \nassume means they have tweaked the patch somewhat or somehow \ncollaborated with the author in producing it. I know Junio signs off \npatches he modifies, and I'm guessing this habit is inherited from the \nkernel workflow which was most likely encouraged by Linus when he was \nthe Git maintainer.\n\nLots of guesswork here, but in a sane world I can't be too far off the \nmark ;-)\n\n-- \nAndreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se\nOP5 AB www.op5.se\n"},{"id":"295341","messageId":"7vbqo0b59h.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"6037","inReplyTo":"453F8187.9060208@op5.se","subject":"Re: Question about commit message conventions","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2006-10-25T18:48:58Z","receivedAt":"2006-10-25T18:48:58Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Andreas Ericsson writes:\n\n> If you sift through the Linux kernel, you will find numerous patches\n> where subsystem maintainers have acked patches sent to them. I *think*\n> this usually means that they have reviewed the patch and approve of\n> it, but not modified it. The Ack is then solely for Linus' benefits\n> and tells him that at least one pair of eyes have already gone over\n> the patch.\n\nCorrect.\n\n> Subsys maintainers sometimes also add Signed-off-by: lines, which I\n> assume means they have tweaked the patch somewhat or somehow\n> collaborated with the author in producing it.\n>...\n> Lots of guesswork here, but in a sane world I can't be too far off the\n> mark ;-)\n\nDocumentation/SubmittingPatches makes it unnecessary to make any\nguesses on S-o-b lines. Regarding subsystem maintainer\nsign-offs, you are referring to DCO 1.1 (b), but the signature\ncould have been made under DCO 1.1 (c).\n\nIn plain terms, the signer vouches that the patch was passed\neither intact or with modifications but the original and\nmodifications are both releasable, to the best of signer's\nknowledge, under open source terms.\n\n"}]}