On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:26 PM Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> wrote: > > 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 not aware of any projects that define S-o-b but make it optional. I suspect there's a reason that those that define it require it. > > 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. I understand, and agree. I'm just suggesting that it may not be good to do something different than all the other projects that meaningfully use S-o-b (i.e., by making it optional). > > 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. I don't think requiring S-o-b is onerous. Using S-o-b in a defined way is just making explicit the current implicit promise to the community that "I have the right to contribute this code" etc. I'm not sure why you're hesitant. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
