On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:52 PM, W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:29:52AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> > Another issue, should we require "Signed-off-by:" lines? At least >> > for things that are contributed by users? >> > >> > … >> >> Thanks for bringing this up. I had circulated the start of a >> proposal on this a year ago: >> http://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/copyrightpolicy.xml > > The (c) clause (“I got this patch from someone else who'd signed the > DCO for it”) leads to chains like: > > Signed-off-by: A. U. Thor <aut...@example.com> > Signed-off-by: Some Maintainer <smaintai...@example.com> > … > > as the patch percolates up to the main repository. In Gentoo, that's > probably going to be just a Gentoo dev, or an external contributor > plus a Gentoo dev. The multiple-signoffs version is not going to play > well with signed commits, because if A. U. Thor signed his commit > (with just his Signed-off-by), Some Maintainer will not be able to add > her Signed-off-by without dropping Thor's commit signature. My > suggested solution here is to take the same approach we're suggesting > for commit signatures, and just have the maintainer add their > Signed-off-by to an explicit merge commit pulling in the contributor's > work.
Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that the source files themselves were not modified - not the commit message. I don't have a problem with preserving contributor commits via merge commits, but I don't think that is the general proposed workflow. -- Rich
