On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 03:42:43AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> 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.
Ok, so our policy is that the committer always adds a sign off? > > 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. But I also reviewed it, so I should ack, right? Adding my own Signed-off-by doesn't imply review, or does it? > > 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. Yes, but does the committer need to sign-off too? Isn't it enough with the signed-off-by from the author and an ack from the committer? > 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. Yes. But the policy of sign-off+ack required for commit is incompatible with the suggested author sign-off+committer sign-off scheme, hence my questions. :) //Peter -- linuxbios mailing list [email protected] http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
