On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:00 PM Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 2018-11-27 17:17:15, Matt Turner wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:13 PM Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > This adds the "Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1" from the Linux > > > kernel. It indicates that by using Signed-off-by you are certifying > > > that your patch meets the DCO 1.1 guidelines. > > > > Do we gain anything if it's optional? > > As I recall, one thing that bothered you about Signed-off-by in Mesa > is that it wasn't documented what it meant when it was used. > > Perhaps there are developers that don't want to use Signed-off-by with > an undocumented meaning for Mesa. If that is the case, then this might > help. I wasn't sure if you fell into that category. > > I use -s whenever I commit, so requiring it would not bother me. But, > I notice that many people (such as yourself) do not, so I didn't see > the need to push for that. > > If it's well documented, and becomes commonly used, then perhaps > requiring it might be a reasonable thing to consider. I won't be > holding my breath while waiting on that. :)
I don't have a problem requiring it. I sign-off on commits I make to Gentoo, to Linux, etc. I'm just against cargo-culting it like we're doing now without a defined meaning. By all means, require it (with a git hook) if you like. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
