On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:28 PM, W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us> wrote: > 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.
I copied it from /usr/src/linux/Documentation/SubmittingPatches which is GPLv2, as far as I can tell. But, I don't think the text really applies to the commits - just the code itself. But, whatever. > 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”? Yes. The user's commit will probably not end up in the tree most of the time. Not that I object to them being there. > 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. Agree. No need to modify the original commit. -- Rich
