>> If you don't sign off on something, you can't put it >> into the public tree -- that's the whole philosophy >> behind the DCO, to have all contributions traceable >> to their origins, by having a "trail of bread crumbs". > > Note I did not write the patch and the original author has of course > signed off, but is unable to commit herself.
[I don't mean you personally of course]. You can only commit a patch to the tree if you take responsibility for it (at some level), and that means you'll have to sign off on it. >> Yes. You got the code, you passed it on. You better make >> sure that you know what you're signing for though -- i.e., >> you should make reasonably sure that the person who sent >> you the patch had the right to do so (whether something is >> sent via a mailing list makes no difference at all btw -- >> conducting your business in the open doesn't change the >> business). > > Again, the poster has signed off. When you want to pass the code on (for example, by committing it to the repo), you have to sign off on it as well. >> Well it would be really weird to sign-off on a patch that >> you don't agree with, so acked-by is quite redundant if you >> already signed off on a patch. > > I would first review (ack) and then commit (sign off) .. > > > It seems neither the sign-off nor the ack fits for just a commit. You *need* a signed-off for a commit though, that's what the DCO is all about. If what you want is keeping track of committers -- that's not a property of a patch, but a property of the repo; any good SCM tracks that for you automatically. Segher -- linuxbios mailing list [email protected] http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
