Thanks for the comments!
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 08:58:23PM +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Does commiting constitute "on the path pushing it in" ?
Yes. Read the DCO if you're still unsure :-)
DCO? Is that an abbreviation for http://www.linuxbios.org/Development_Guidelines?
DCO is Developer's Certificate of Origin, the blurb that Signed-off-by is shorthand for.
Speaking of the DCO, we are using the verbatim text of the DCO 1.1 but we have renamed it to "LinuxBIOS Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1" on the wiki page. Was that intentional?
The original DCO has the following copyright notice: "© 2005 Open Source Development Labs, Inc. The Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. If you modify you must use a name or title distinguishable from "Developer's Certificate of Origin" or "DCO" or any confusingly similar name."
I'd like to change the wiki page to make it clear that this is the OSDL DCO and not some local LinuxBIOS variation with a stolen name. Is that OK with everyone?
Ie. if I review and then commit, should I sign off or ack?
I would say ack, but not necessarily sign off.
I guess Segher's point is that committing a patch sent to the mailing list falls under (c) in the DCO, so I should sign off. Is the mailing list really "directly to me" ?
However, I first reviewed the patch, so I should ack it. We want at least one acked-by before commit.
So should I actually first ack and then sign off?
Or do we just agree to roll the two into one for LinuxBIOS? That would make whichever one we choose more ambiguous though. :\