e<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign> Erik Faye-Lund <erik.faye-l...@collabora.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 13:43 -0800, Eric Anholt wrote: >> Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> writes: >> >> > This adds the "Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1" from the >> > Linux >> > kernel. It indicates that by using Signed-off-by you are certifying >> > that your patch meets the DCO 1.1 guidelines. >> > >> > It also changes Signed-off-by from being optional to being >> > required. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> >> > Cc: Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> >> >> What problem for our project is solved by signed-off-by? Do you >> think >> that it has actually reduced the incidence of people submitting code >> they don't have permission to submit in the projects where it's been >> used? I know the behavior in the kernel is that people submit a >> patch, >> it's missing s-o-b, so it gets bounced, then they maybe add s-o-b or >> just give up. I don't think anyone stops and says "Wow, that's a >> good >> question. Maybe I don't have permission to distribute this after >> all?" >> >> /me sees s-o-b as basically just a linux kernel hazing ritual > > I don't think that's the purpose of s-o-b in the Kernel. AFAIK, the > reason for the s-o-b is to have a paper-trail for how a patch landed in > the kernel; who it went through etc. I get the *idea*, I just believe the idea fails in practice. The S-O-B idea came from "wouldn't it be nice if we could make everyone think about this issue that is important to us" but what we actually got instead is "your patch gets bounced if you don't have a s-o-b on until you slap one on and resend." We've already got 1-2 people to contact if there's a question about authorship, from the committer and author fields. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
