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

[Pavan Balaji]

Please use devel at mpich.org for developer oriented discussion.

We use signoff as a way to get a second confirmation on the correctness of the patch.  In some cases, multiple confirmations.  There’s also a "silent signoff” done by the jenkins testing before things are merged into mpich/master.

  — Pavan

On Jan 4, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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