On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jordan Justen <[email protected]> wrote: >> What are the arguments against just following the kernel's >> Signed-off-by practice? > > What are the arguments for it? > > The kernel's submitting patches documentation says that > > - Signed-off-by: this is a developer's certification that he or she has > the right to submit the patch for inclusion into the kernel. It is an > agreement to the Developer's Certificate of Origin, the full text of > which can be found in Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Code without a > proper signoff cannot be merged into the mainline. > > and > > The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the > development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
That text contains one of the arguments. Signed-of-by is a way for the contributor to assert that they are confident the open source project can use the code they've submitted. In other words, they didn't just copy it off some web-site, or out of some closed source code. Yes, this is usually implied by submitting the patch, but with Signed-of-by, they are specifically calling it out. I assume the kernel folks thought about this a fair amount before developing the signature process, so it seems like a good idea to just leverage that. Another argument would be that developers are somewhat likely to already be familiar with the process from the kernel and other open source projects. Frank's feedback on Paul's patch is an example of this. When I started contributing to mesa/piglit I also assumed the same thing since we used all the other parts of the kernel's *-by process. Adding -s to git commit just doesn't seem to be much of burden, nor much of change in process. -Jordan _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
