Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

[Matt Turner]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:45:05 -0500
>> Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote:
>
>>> Does pram allow you to pass options to git
>>> am (signedoffby for instance)?
>
>> It doesn't presently allow arbitrary arguments, and it would
>> probably be wise to avoid need for such arguments and prefer
>> convention over configuration, given what this is.
>
>> --signoff is already a default:
>
>> https://metacpan.org/source/MONSIEURP/Gentoo-App-Pram-0.003000/lib/Gentoo/App/Pram.pm#L71
>
> Maybe I have missed something, but why would one use --signoff for
> a Gentoo commit?
>
> For Linux (the kernel), the meaning of the line is that the
> contributor certifies the DCO (Developer's Certificate of Origin) [1].
> As we don't have a Gentoo DCO, it is not at all clear to me what the
> meaning of a Signed-off-by: line would be in the context of the gentoo
> tree.
>
> Even worse, I see commits having Signed-off-by: lines with obvious
> pseudonyms instead of a real name, which would be meaningless even if
> one would say that the Linux rules apply. (Also, we have the rule that
> real names must be provided for all developers, with no exceptions to
> be made for people doing copyrightable work [2].)

This is probably worthy of a separate thread.

But I completely agree: it's meaningless. Mesa, the project I work on
professionally, has the same cargo-culted Signed-off-by with patch
reviewers even pointing out lack of (still meaningless!) S-o-b.

To all: Signed-off-by doesn't mean anything without a Developer
Certificate of Origin. Until a time when Gentoo has one, please stop
putting it on your commits.