On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 15:20 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 14:29, Eric Engestrom < > eric.engest...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, 2018-11-28 01:18:16 -0800, Jordan Justen wrote: > > > On 2018-11-28 00:47:25, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 23:20 -0800, Jordan Justen 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. > > > > > > > > > > It also changes Signed-off-by from being optional to being > > > > > required. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> > > > > > Cc: Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > docs/submittingpatches.html | 52 > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > > > 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/docs/submittingpatches.html > > > > > b/docs/submittingpatches.html > > > > > index 9ae750d5a15..6d506b3691b 100644 > > > > > --- a/docs/submittingpatches.html > > > > > +++ b/docs/submittingpatches.html > > > > > @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ > > > > > <ul> > > > > > <li><a href="#guidelines">Basic guidelines</a> > > > > > <li><a href="#formatting">Patch formatting</a> > > > > > +<li><a href="#signing">Patch Signing</a> (Signed-off-by, > > > > > Developer's > > > > > + Certificate of > > > > > Origin) > > > > > <li><a href="#testing">Testing Patches</a> > > > > > <li><a href="#mailing">Mailing Patches</a> > > > > > <li><a href="#reviewing">Reviewing Patches</a> > > > > > @@ -73,7 +75,9 @@ if needed. For example: > > > > > is necessary, and removing it causes no regressions in > > > > > piglit on > > > > > any > > > > > platform. > > > > > </pre> > > > > > -<li>A "Signed-off-by:" line is not required, but not > > > > > discouraged > > > > > either. > > > > > +<li>A "Signed-off-by:" line is <strong>required</strong>. > > > > > The format > > > > > +and meaning of Signed-off-by is documented below in > > > > > +the <a href="#signing">patch signing</a> section. > > > > > <li>If a patch addresses a bugzilla issue, that should be > > > > > noted in > > > > > the > > > > > patch comment. For example: > > > > > <pre> > > > > > @@ -129,7 +133,53 @@ Please use common sense and do > > > > > <strong>not</strong> blindly add everyone. > > > > > </pre> > > > > > </ul> > > > > > > > > > > +<h2 id="signing"> > > > > > + Patch Signing (Signed-off-by, Developer's Certificate of > > > > > Origin) > > > > > +</h2> > > > > > > > > > > +<p> > > > > > + As described in the <a href="#formatting">patch > > > > > formatting</a> > > > > > + section, you must sign your patch by including Signed-off- > > > > > by in > > > > > the > > > > > + patch commit message. The Signed-off-by must include your > > > > > real > > > > > name > > > > > + and email address in this format: > > > > > +</p> > > > > > +<pre> > > > > > + Signed-off-by: Joe Hacker <jhac...@foo.com> > > > > > +</pre> > > > > > +<p> > > > > > + By adding Signed-of-by to your contributed patch, you > > > > > certify that > > > > > + your contribution meets the guidelines of the Developer's > > > > > + Certificate of Origin: > > > > > +</p> > > > > > + > > > > > +<pre> > > > > > +Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 > > > > > +------------------------------------- > > > > > + > > > > > +By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: > > > > > + > > > > > + (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me > > > > > and I > > > > > + have the right to submit it under the open source > > > > > license > > > > > + indicated in the file; or > > > > > + > > > > > + (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to > > > > > the best > > > > > + of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open > > > > > source > > > > > + license and I have the right under that license to > > > > > submit that > > > > > + work with modifications, whether created in whole or in > > > > > part > > > > > + by me, under the same open source license (unless I am > > > > > + permitted to submit under a different license), as > > > > > indicated > > > > > + in the file; or > > > > > + > > > > > + (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some > > > > > other > > > > > + person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not > > > > > modified > > > > > + it. > > > > > + > > > > > + (d) I understand and agree that this project and the > > > > > contribution > > > > > + are public and that a record of the contribution > > > > > (including all > > > > > + personal information I submit with it, including my > > > > > sign-off) > > > > > is > > > > > + maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed > > > > > consistent > > > > > with > > > > > + this project or the open source license(s) involved. > > > > > +</pre> > > > > > > > > I don't think you can legally copy parts for this file, but not > > > > all of > > > > it, due to this text (from here: > > > > https://developercertificate.org/) > > > > > > > > "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies > > > > of this > > > > license document, but changing it is not allowed." > > > > > > > > Removing that text (and the copyright statement above it), is > > > > changing > > > > it. > > > > > > It came from the kernel Documentation/process/submitting- > > > patches.rst, > > > which doesn't have that specific text about "verbatim copies". I > > > guess > > > you prefer we copy it from https://developercertificate.org/? > > > > > > > I would propose you add it as a separate file and link that, to > > > > avoid > > > > confusion about what "this license document" refers to. > > > > > > I do see that Eclipse had it on a page with other content. > > > Although, > > > the main focus of the page is the DCO. > > > https://www.eclipse.org/legal/DCO.php > > > > > > It doesn't look like https://developercertificate.org/ has a > > > filename > > > associated with the content. So, something like docs/dco.txt or > > > docs/developer-certificate-of-origin.txt? > > > > If we need to have a local copy, then I'd prefer a verbose name (so > > 2nd > > option), but can't we simply link to it? > > > > By adding Signed-of-by to your contributed patch, you certify > > that > > your contribution meets the guidelines of the > > <a href="https://developercertificate.org";>Developer's > > Certificate > > of Origin</a>. > > > > Other than that, both the 'optional' and 'required' wordings look > > good > > to me, and I have no preference between the two; I've always signed > > my > > mesa commits with the understanding that it had the DCO meaning > > anyway. > > > > With either the full-text-copy in a verbose filename, or a simple > > link, > > and for either the 'optional' or the 'required' wording, this is: > > Reviewed-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engest...@intel.com> > > Perfectly said Eric. I'm on the same page - with either a full copy > or > a link the patch is
I find it a bit bad to link to text in a page we don't control for a few reasons: - The certificate could change without us knowing. - The site could disappear. - The docuemnt would require internet access to read and agree to. None of these are super-strong arguments, but IMO the text is small and short enough to include without hassle. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
