Posted Oct 25, 2011 0:59 UTC (Tue) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)
Parent article: KS2011: Patch review
> That led to some discussion of the relative meaning and merit of Reviewed-by and Signed-off-by. The latter is a much stronger statement in the end, and, it was agreed, carries more weight.
This makes no sense to me. As defined in SubmittingPatches, the Signed-off-by: line says nothing about the quality of the patch, only the origin.
It represents a "Developer's Certificate of Origin" and is meant to address questions of copyright, not questions of value.
So it seems to me that if the original statement is true, then people are interpreting SOB wrongly.
SubmittingPatches gives a "Reviewer's statement of oversight" which defines what Reviewed-by: is meant to mean, and it sounds like it should carry a whole lot more weight...