[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] docs: Document the optional usage of Signed-off-by

[Matt Turner]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:00 PM Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen at intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2018-11-27 17:17:15, Matt Turner wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:13 PM Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen at intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Do we gain anything if it's optional?
>
> As I recall, one thing that bothered you about Signed-off-by in Mesa
> is that it wasn't documented what it meant when it was used.
>
> Perhaps there are developers that don't want to use Signed-off-by with
> an undocumented meaning for Mesa. If that is the case, then this might
> help. I wasn't sure if you fell into that category.
>
> I use -s whenever I commit, so requiring it would not bother me. But,
> I notice that many people (such as yourself) do not, so I didn't see
> the need to push for that.
>
> If it's well documented, and becomes commonly used, then perhaps
> requiring it might be a reasonable thing to consider. I won't be
> holding my breath while waiting on that. :)

I don't have a problem requiring it. I sign-off on commits I make to
Gentoo, to Linux, etc. I'm just against cargo-culting it like we're
doing now without a defined meaning.

By all means, require it (with a git hook) if you like.