Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> writes: > This adds the "Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1" from the Linux > kernel. It indicates that by using Signed-off-by you are certifying > that your patch meets the DCO 1.1 guidelines. > > It also changes Signed-off-by from being optional to being required. > > Signed-off-by: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> > Cc: Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com>
What problem for our project is solved by signed-off-by? Do you think that it has actually reduced the incidence of people submitting code they don't have permission to submit in the projects where it's been used? I know the behavior in the kernel is that people submit a patch, it's missing s-o-b, so it gets bounced, then they maybe add s-o-b or just give up. I don't think anyone stops and says "Wow, that's a good question. Maybe I don't have permission to distribute this after all?" /me sees s-o-b as basically just a linux kernel hazing ritual
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
