On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:13:53PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that the source files > themselves were not modified - not the commit message.
The DCO text is verbatim copies only [1], so I don't think adjusting clauses is legal. And if you're modifying neither the source files nor the commit message, I'm not sure where you're suggesting the Signed-off-by go. Or are you saying that when a maintainer adds their s-o-b and blows away the user's signature, they should just say “don't worry, this is still pretty much what the user signed”? Personally, I don't think the maintainer appending their s-o-b to the user's commit is all that important (certainly not worth blowing away the user's signature) when they can just sign and s-o-b an explicit merge commit. > I don't have a problem with preserving contributor commits via merge > commits, but I don't think that is the general proposed workflow. The wiki has [2]: don't do complicated rebases to avoid a merge commit at all cost (it may even cause losing information, e.g. user signatures) which makes sense to me. Cheers, Trevor [1]: http://developercertificate.org/ [2]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Gentoo_git_workflow&redirect=no#atomicity -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
