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

[Jed Brown]

I'm confused by the current use of Signed-off-by tags in MPICH.  Is this
intended to be a developer's certificate of origin (DCO) following the
model of the Linux kernel [1]?  I can't tell if IBM is using it that
way, where Michael Blocksome is the one authorized by IBM to assert on
IBM's behalf that the work has clean IP and may be distributed under the
MPICH license.  But what does this mean?

commit 87b20136ac20a0fbcffd8e29edcc500fcebbfc22
Author:     Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov>
AuthorDate: Wed Jan 1 19:33:36 2014 -0600
Commit:     Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov>
CommitDate: Thu Jan 2 15:39:07 2014 -0600

    Move default eager threshold setting to ch3.
    
    We were setting the default eager threshold inside nemesis, instead of
    in ch3.  This was causing other ch3 channels, notably sock, to get a
    garbage default value for the eager threshold.
    
    Signed-off-by: Wesley Bland <wbland at mcs.anl.gov>


If this were a DCO, we would interpret it as meaning that Wesley is the
one certifying the IP, but Pavan is the author.

Or is Signed-off-by being used where Reviewed-by would be more
appropriate?


[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mpich.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140104/d026778a/attachment.sig>