| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:29:52AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Another issue, should we require "Signed-off-by:" lines? At least |
| 4 |
> > for things that are contributed by users? |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > … |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Thanks for bringing this up. I had circulated the start of a |
| 9 |
> proposal on this a year ago: |
| 10 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/copyrightpolicy.xml |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The (c) clause (“I got this patch from someone else who'd signed the |
| 13 |
DCO for it”) leads to chains like: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Signed-off-by: A. U. Thor <author@×××××××.com> |
| 16 |
Signed-off-by: Some Maintainer <smaintainer@×××××××.com> |
| 17 |
… |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
as the patch percolates up to the main repository. In Gentoo, that's |
| 20 |
probably going to be just a Gentoo dev, or an external contributor |
| 21 |
plus a Gentoo dev. The multiple-signoffs version is not going to play |
| 22 |
well with signed commits, because if A. U. Thor signed his commit |
| 23 |
(with just his Signed-off-by), Some Maintainer will not be able to add |
| 24 |
her Signed-off-by without dropping Thor's commit signature. My |
| 25 |
suggested solution here is to take the same approach we're suggesting |
| 26 |
for commit signatures, and just have the maintainer add their |
| 27 |
Signed-off-by to an explicit merge commit pulling in the contributor's |
| 28 |
work. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Cheers, |
| 31 |
Trevor |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
| 35 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |
Archives