| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:28 PM, W. Trevor King <wking@×××××××.us> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:13:53PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that the source files |
| 4 |
>> themselves were not modified - not the commit message. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> The DCO text is verbatim copies only [1], so I don't think adjusting |
| 7 |
> clauses is legal. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I copied it from /usr/src/linux/Documentation/SubmittingPatches which |
| 10 |
is GPLv2, as far as I can tell. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
But, I don't think the text really applies to the commits - just the |
| 13 |
code itself. But, whatever. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> And if you're modifying neither the source files |
| 16 |
> nor the commit message, I'm not sure where you're suggesting the |
| 17 |
> Signed-off-by go. Or are you saying that when a maintainer adds their |
| 18 |
> s-o-b and blows away the user's signature, they should just say “don't |
| 19 |
> worry, this is still pretty much what the user signed”? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Yes. The user's commit will probably not end up in the tree most of |
| 22 |
the time. Not that I object to them being there. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Personally, I |
| 25 |
> don't think the maintainer appending their s-o-b to the user's commit |
| 26 |
> is all that important (certainly not worth blowing away the user's |
| 27 |
> signature) when they can just sign and s-o-b an explicit merge commit. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Agree. No need to modify the original commit. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Rich |
Archives