On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:30:49PM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
> Missing sign-off; see http://developercertificate.org/ for what this
> means.
I am aware, but small changes like these are not generally recognized to
fit the threshold of originality for copyright protection. Thus, the
idea of Signed-off is quite often silly.
There are arguably cases where Signed-off is useful, for example, where
the maintainer has changed the commit message of the author or
co-authored code into the patch. An example from another repository I
maintain:
commit d17c8830a8cb97fb48201990f5d57eb7a7b9e4ee
Author: Eliot Whalan <ew...@pantsu.cat>
Date: Thu Jan 21 11:41:17 2016 +1000
Remove unused page specific CSS (old, ded)
The tools page has only had alive and maintained tools on it since Pomf
2.0.0. Ded and old tools have been removed in commit
627937d0fa632a677f278af467886915c0a36f35.
It is anticipated that these style rules will be never used again. If we
did, we can add them back later: "you aren't gonna need it" (YAGNI). If
it's dead, you should probably remove the tool from the tools page
instead of beating a dead horse.
[w...@partyvan.eu: Modified Git commit message, as discussed]
Signed-off-by: Juuso Lapinlampi <w...@partyvan.eu>
In this case, the sole author is me and I don't think it's sensible to
use Signed-off-by. Not at least until Git makes it a default behavior.
I am the author of these patches with my name and email address in Git's
"Author:" field.
(Off-topic: Notice how the copyright headers are stuck in year 2014 in
the source file. Year ranges (2006-2014) have never been tested in court
as far as I'm aware, but comma seperated copyright years (2006, 2007,
2008, [...]) have been as far as I'm aware.)
_______________________________________________
CGit mailing list
CGit@lists.zx2c4.com
http://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/cgit
