On Jan 4, 2014, at 10:21 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> 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