On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 03:42:43AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
If you don't sign off on something, you can't put it into the public tree -- that's the whole philosophy behind the DCO, to have all contributions traceable to their origins, by having a "trail of bread crumbs".
Note I did not write the patch and the original author has of course signed off, but is unable to commit herself.
[I don't mean you personally of course].
You can only commit a patch to the tree if you take responsibility for it (at some level), and that means you'll have to sign off on it.
Ok, so our policy is that the committer always adds a sign off?
Again, the poster has signed off.
When you want to pass the code on (for example, by committing it to the repo), you have to sign off on it as well.
But I also reviewed it, so I should ack, right? Adding my own Signed-off-by doesn't imply review, or does it?
It seems neither the sign-off nor the ack fits for just a commit.
You *need* a signed-off for a commit though, that's what the DCO is all about.
Yes, but does the committer need to sign-off too? Isn't it enough with the signed-off-by from the author and an ack from the committer?
If what you want is keeping track of committers -- that's not a property of a patch, but a property of the repo; any good SCM tracks that for you automatically.
But the policy of sign-off+ack required for commit is incompatible with the suggested author sign-off+committer sign-off scheme, hence my questions. :)