On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:05:14PM +0000, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Luca Barbato <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On 4/26/11 4:47 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote: >> >> I am confused whether or not I should signoff patches and/or signoff >> >> my own patches. Currently we have a mix of both taking place. >> >> What's the best way to proceed? >> > >> > I'd singoff only the patches from others you push and not signoff your own >> > patches. >> >> +1. >> >> If you sign off your own patches, you're essentially saying you can't >> trust your own patches. > > I thought it could be interpreted as a chain of trust kind of thing. > I think it is used that way in the Linux kernel. AFAIK all patch > submitters sign off their own patches there.
That's right. > I don't particularly care which way we handle it, but this seemed > worth pointing out... I prefer to always s-o-b patches. Think of this scenario; a person sends a patch, it is modified by somebody else, and then applied. Did the original author agree to those changes? If the s-o-b is there, yes, otherwise not. If you don't s-o-b all the patches, you wouldn't know. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
