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? > >> > >> Sign off. > > > > 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. //Peter -- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios