Please use [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> AuthorDate: Wed Jan 1 19:33:36 2014 -0600 Commit: Pavan Balaji <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>

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 [email protected] To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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