| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wed, 2021-07-28 at 07:07 +0300, Joonas Niilola wrote: |
| 4 |
>> @@ -138,7 +139,10 @@ the Certificate of Origin by adding :: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> to the commit message as a separate line. The sign-off must contain |
| 7 |
>> the committer's legal name as a natural person, i.e., the name that |
| 8 |
>> -would appear in a government issued document. |
| 9 |
>> +would appear in a government issued document. It's strongly encouraged |
| 10 |
>> +that the original contribution author also adds their sign-off, to at |
| 11 |
>> +least indicate they are aware of this GLEP. But it's required only |
| 12 |
>> +from the committer. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> To be honest, the wording sounds a bit backwards. 'Commiters must do X |
| 15 |
> but we encourage everyone to do X but it's only required from |
| 16 |
> committers.' |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
+1 |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Let's maybe start by replacing 'the committer shall' with 'the |
| 21 |
> committer must'. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I tend to disagree. "Shall" means that it is mandatory, see (e.g.) |
| 24 |
RFC 2119 [1]. Also I am pretty sure that we've discussed this point when |
| 25 |
drafting the original version. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> As the next sentence, something akin 'Other authors contributing to |
| 28 |
> the change are also encouraged to include their sign-off but the |
| 29 |
> committer decides whether these sign-offs are required'. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Honestly, that isn't much better. It is optional for authors but the |
| 32 |
committer decides if it is mandatory? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Maybe something along the lines of: "It is strongly recommended that |
| 35 |
contributors also include their sign-offs. In particular circumstances, |
| 36 |
the committer may decide that these sign-offs are not required. In this |
| 37 |
case, the committer cannot certify the contribution by point 4., but |
| 38 |
must certify it by point 1., 2., or 3." |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
("Recommended" and "in particular circumstances" borrowed from RFC 2119, |
| 41 |
too.) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> And then the common part about real name, as it applies the same to |
| 44 |
> both. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
+1 |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
>> +vi. Clarify that a sign-off is only strictly required from the |
| 49 |
>> + committer, not from the author. |
| 50 |
>> + |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
This hunk should be omitted because it is not related to the certificate |
| 53 |
of origin. The GLEP editors will add a note under "Status" when (and if) |
| 54 |
the update is reapproved by council and board of trustees. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Ulrich |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119 |
Archives