[mpich-devel] [mpich-discuss] Use of Signed-off-by in MPICH

[Pavan Balaji]

On Jan 4, 2014, at 10:21 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> We use signoff as a way to get a second confirmation on the
>> correctness of the patch.  
> 
> All the projects following Linux kernel conventions (where
> "Signed-off-by" was invented) use Reviewed-by (and Acked-by or
> Tested-by) for this.  I would recommend changing because it creates
> confusion and I don't see a tangible benefit to using the terms
> differently from conventional usage.  Regardless, conventions like these
> are good to have in the developer documentation.

AFAIK, signedoff has project specific meaning.  Essentially, it’s what we define it to be.  I guess we could have used “Reviewed-by”, but I’m not sure it really matters that much.  But you are right, we should document it some place.  Maybe the wiki?

>> In some cases, multiple confirmations.  There’s also a "silent
>> signoff” done by the jenkins testing before things are merged into
>> mpich/master.
> 
> I thought the tests were on jenkins-ci.mcs.anl.gov, but I don't see it
> there any more.  In any case, 'master' is currently not buildable (see
> my other mail).

They are here:

https://jenkins.mpich.org/

  — Pavan

--
Pavan Balaji
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji