Hi Bradley,
Thanks for following the discussion and your input.
We have also been discussing some policy wording changes on gcc-patches:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20241202101600.1041524-1-m...@klomp.org/T
If you have any suggestions for improving the actual wording change
that woul
> On 11/24/24 11:49 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > One size doesn't necessarily fit all. Perhaps if you're changing the DCO
> > text for the toolchain projects at this moment, it might be a good time to
> > consider if the Linux DCO text suits your project perfectly.
Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> This
On 11/24/24 11:49 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> One size doesn't necessarily fit all. Perhaps if you're changing the DCO
> text for the toolchain projects at this moment, it might be a good time to
> consider if the Linux DCO text suits your project perfectly.
This is not a change of the DCO text.
Carlos O'Donell wrote on Friday:
> The DCO was introduced to gcc, glibc and binutils in 2021 and 2022
> to expand and align the contribution process with other free and open
> source software projects that had been effectively using DCO for
> contributions.
> To that end I'm aligning the glibc usa
Hi Carlos,
Thanks for starting this discussion.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 12:17:37PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell via Gcc wrote:
> These changes clarify what was meant by "real name" and that it is
> not required to be a "legal name" or any other stronger requirement
> than a known identity that could be
The DCO was introduced to gcc, glibc and binutils in 2021 and 2022
to expand and align the contribution process with other free and open
source software projects that had been effectively using DCO for
contributions.
To that end I'm aligning the glibc usage following the Linux kernel
changes from
