Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo git workflows and the stabilization/keywording process

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:52 PM, W. Trevor King <wking@×××××××.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:29:52AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > Another issue, should we require "Signed-off-by:" lines? At least
>> > for things that are contributed by users?
>> >
>> > …
>>
>> Thanks for bringing this up.  I had circulated the start of a
>> proposal on this a year ago:
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/copyrightpolicy.xml
>
> The (c) clause (“I got this patch from someone else who'd signed the
> DCO for it”) leads to chains like:
>
>   Signed-off-by: A. U. Thor <author@×××××××.com>
>   Signed-off-by: Some Maintainer <smaintainer@×××××××.com>
>   …
>
> as the patch percolates up to the main repository.  In Gentoo, that's
> probably going to be just a Gentoo dev, or an external contributor
> plus a Gentoo dev.  The multiple-signoffs version is not going to play
> well with signed commits, because if A. U. Thor signed his commit
> (with just his Signed-off-by), Some Maintainer will not be able to add
> her Signed-off-by without dropping Thor's commit signature.  My
> suggested solution here is to take the same approach we're suggesting
> for commit signatures, and just have the maintainer add their
> Signed-off-by to an explicit merge commit pulling in the contributor's
> work.

Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that the source files
themselves were not modified - not the commit message.

I don't have a problem with preserving contributor commits via merge
commits, but I don't think that is the general proposed workflow.

--
Rich