| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:13:53PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that the source files |
| 3 |
> themselves were not modified - not the commit message. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
The DCO text is verbatim copies only [1], so I don't think adjusting |
| 6 |
clauses is legal. And if you're modifying neither the source files |
| 7 |
nor the commit message, I'm not sure where you're suggesting the |
| 8 |
Signed-off-by go. Or are you saying that when a maintainer adds their |
| 9 |
s-o-b and blows away the user's signature, they should just say “don't |
| 10 |
worry, this is still pretty much what the user signed”? Personally, I |
| 11 |
don't think the maintainer appending their s-o-b to the user's commit |
| 12 |
is all that important (certainly not worth blowing away the user's |
| 13 |
signature) when they can just sign and s-o-b an explicit merge commit. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> I don't have a problem with preserving contributor commits via merge |
| 16 |
> commits, but I don't think that is the general proposed workflow. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The wiki has [2]: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
don't do complicated rebases to avoid a merge commit at all cost (it |
| 21 |
may even cause losing information, e.g. user signatures) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
which makes sense to me. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Cheers, |
| 26 |
Trevor |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
[1]: http://developercertificate.org/ |
| 29 |
[2]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Gentoo_git_workflow&redirect=no#atomicity |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
| 33 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |
Archives