On 2018-11-27 18:04:17, Matt Turner wrote: > 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.
If it has the same meaning as with the Linux kernel, but is not required, then you won't use it? I guess your concern might be that you are then giving something to the project that others can choose not to. ? > I'm just against cargo-culting it like we're doing now without a > defined meaning. The purpose of this patch is to give it a defined meaning. And the meaning I chose is the one that people are more likely to have in mind when they use Signed-off-by. Maybe that's too big of an assumption on my part, but I think several other open source projects have followed the kernel on this. > By all means, require it (with a git hook) if you like. I personally don't want to push for that right now. I guess I would like it to be required someday, primarily because it creates a standard process for open source projects to use. (So, people are more likely to be used to it in general when contributing to open source projects.) But, I'm not confident that the consensus for Mesa would be in favor of making that change right now. So, as an alternative I'd like to remove any barriers (such as ambiguity) to its usage in Mesa. -Jordan _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
