...or maybe a combination? How does the following patch look as a way
to describe how the tags are used and what Reviewed-by, in particular,
means?
Perhaps the DCO should move to this file as well?
jon
---
Add a document on patch tags.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
diff --git a/Documentation/00-INDEX b/Documentation/00-INDEX
index 43e89b1..fa1518b 100644
--- a/Documentation/00-INDEX
+++ b/Documentation/00-INDEX
@@ -284,6 +284,8 @@ parport.txt
- how to use the parallel-port driver.
parport-lowlevel.txt
- description and usage of the low level parallel port functions.
+patch-tags
+ - description of the tags which can be added to patches
pci-error-recovery.txt
- info on PCI error recovery.
pci.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/patch-tags b/Documentation/patch-tags
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fb5f8e1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/patch-tags
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+Patches headed for the mainline may contain a variety of tags documenting
+who played a hand in (or was at least aware of) its progress. All of these
+tags have the form:
+
+ Something-done-by: Full name <email@address>
+
+These tags are:
+
+Signed-off-by: A person adding a Signed-off-by tag is attesting that the
+ patch is, to the best of his or her knowledge, legally able
+ to be merged into the mainline and distributed under the
+ terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2. See
+ the Developer's Certificate of Origin, found in
+ Documentation/SubmittingPatches, for the precise meaning of
+ Signed-off-by.
+
+Acked-by: The person named (who should be an active developer in the
+ area addressed by the patch) is aware of the patch and has
+ no objection to its inclusion. An Acked-by tag does not
+ imply any involvement in the development of the patch or
+ that a detailed review was done.
+
+Reviewed-by: The patch has been reviewed and found acceptible according
+ to the Reviewer's Statement as found at the bottom of this
+ file. A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the
+ patch is an appropriate modification of the kernel without
+ any remaining serious technical issues. Any interested
+ reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a Reviewed-by
+ tag for a patch.
+
+Cc: The person named was given the opportunity to comment on
+ the patch. This is the only tag which might be added
+ without an explicit action by the person it names.
+
+Tested-by: The patch has been successfully tested (in some
+ environment) by the person named.
+
+
+----
+
+Reviewer's statement of oversight, v0.02
+
+By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
+
+ (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to evaluate its
+ appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into the mainline kernel.
+
+ (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been
+ communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with how the
+ submitter has responded to my comments.
+
+ (c) While there may (or may not) be things which could be improved with
+ this submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a worthwhile
+ modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known issues which would
+ argue against its inclusion.
+
+ (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I can not
+ (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any warranties or guarantees
+ that it will achieve its stated purpose or function properly in any
+ given situation.
+
+ (e) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are
+ public and that a record of the contribution (including my Reviewed-by
+ tag and any associated public communications) is maintained
+ indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with this project or
+ the open source license(s) involved.
-
