On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:42:03AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Ie. if I review and then commit, should I sign off or ack?
I would say ack, but not necessarily sign off.
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.
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:46:47AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
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" ?
Yes. You got the code, you passed it on. You better make sure that you know what you're signing for though -- i.e., you should make reasonably sure that the person who sent you the patch had the right to do so (whether something is sent via a mailing list makes no difference at all btw -- conducting your business in the open doesn't change the business).
Again, the poster has signed off.
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. :\
Well it would be really weird to sign-off on a patch that you don't agree with, so acked-by is quite redundant if you already signed off on a patch.
I would first review (ack) and then commit (sign off) ..
It seems neither the sign-off nor the ack fits for just a commit.