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

[Jed Brown]

Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov> writes:

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

Okay, moving it.

> 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.

> 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).
-------------- 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/d50cc1d2/attachment.sig>