[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] docs: Document and *require* usage of Signed-off-by
Eric Engestrom
eric.engestrom at intel.com
Wed Nov 28 16:39:07 UTC 2018
On Wednesday, 2018-11-28 16:28:53 +0100, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 15:20 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 14:29, Eric Engestrom <
> > eric.engestrom at intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 2018-11-28 01:18:16 -0800, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > > > On 2018-11-28 00:47:25, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 23:20 -0800, Jordan Justen 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It also changes Signed-off-by from being optional to being
> > > > > > required.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen at intel.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > docs/submittingpatches.html | 52
> > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/docs/submittingpatches.html
> > > > > > b/docs/submittingpatches.html
> > > > > > index 9ae750d5a15..6d506b3691b 100644
> > > > > > --- a/docs/submittingpatches.html
> > > > > > +++ b/docs/submittingpatches.html
> > > > > > @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@
> > > > > > <ul>
> > > > > > <li><a href="#guidelines">Basic guidelines</a>
> > > > > > <li><a href="#formatting">Patch formatting</a>
> > > > > > +<li><a href="#signing">Patch Signing</a> (Signed-off-by,
> > > > > > Developer's
> > > > > > + Certificate of
> > > > > > Origin)
> > > > > > <li><a href="#testing">Testing Patches</a>
> > > > > > <li><a href="#mailing">Mailing Patches</a>
> > > > > > <li><a href="#reviewing">Reviewing Patches</a>
> > > > > > @@ -73,7 +75,9 @@ if needed. For example:
> > > > > > is necessary, and removing it causes no regressions in
> > > > > > piglit on
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > platform.
> > > > > > </pre>
> > > > > > -<li>A "Signed-off-by:" line is not required, but not
> > > > > > discouraged
> > > > > > either.
> > > > > > +<li>A "Signed-off-by:" line is <strong>required</strong>.
> > > > > > The format
> > > > > > +and meaning of Signed-off-by is documented below in
> > > > > > +the <a href="#signing">patch signing</a> section.
> > > > > > <li>If a patch addresses a bugzilla issue, that should be
> > > > > > noted in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > patch comment. For example:
> > > > > > <pre>
> > > > > > @@ -129,7 +133,53 @@ Please use common sense and do
> > > > > > <strong>not</strong> blindly add everyone.
> > > > > > </pre>
> > > > > > </ul>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +<h2 id="signing">
> > > > > > + Patch Signing (Signed-off-by, Developer's Certificate of
> > > > > > Origin)
> > > > > > +</h2>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +<p>
> > > > > > + As described in the <a href="#formatting">patch
> > > > > > formatting</a>
> > > > > > + section, you must sign your patch by including Signed-off-
> > > > > > by in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > + patch commit message. The Signed-off-by must include your
> > > > > > real
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > + and email address in this format:
> > > > > > +</p>
> > > > > > +<pre>
> > > > > > + Signed-off-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker at foo.com>
> > > > > > +</pre>
> > > > > > +<p>
> > > > > > + By adding Signed-of-by to your contributed patch, you
> > > > > > certify that
> > > > > > + your contribution meets the guidelines of the Developer's
> > > > > > + Certificate of Origin:
> > > > > > +</p>
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +<pre>
> > > > > > +Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
> > > > > > +-------------------------------------
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me
> > > > > > and I
> > > > > > + have the right to submit it under the open source
> > > > > > license
> > > > > > + indicated in the file; or
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to
> > > > > > the best
> > > > > > + of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open
> > > > > > source
> > > > > > + license and I have the right under that license to
> > > > > > submit that
> > > > > > + work with modifications, whether created in whole or in
> > > > > > part
> > > > > > + by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
> > > > > > + permitted to submit under a different license), as
> > > > > > indicated
> > > > > > + in the file; or
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > + person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not
> > > > > > modified
> > > > > > + it.
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + (d) I understand and agree that this project and the
> > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > + are public and that a record of the contribution
> > > > > > (including all
> > > > > > + personal information I submit with it, including my
> > > > > > sign-off)
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > + maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed
> > > > > > consistent
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > + this project or the open source license(s) involved.
> > > > > > +</pre>
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think you can legally copy parts for this file, but not
> > > > > all of
> > > > > it, due to this text (from here:
> > > > > https://developercertificate.org/)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> > > > > of this
> > > > > license document, but changing it is not allowed."
> > > > >
> > > > > Removing that text (and the copyright statement above it), is
> > > > > changing
> > > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > It came from the kernel Documentation/process/submitting-
> > > > patches.rst,
> > > > which doesn't have that specific text about "verbatim copies". I
> > > > guess
> > > > you prefer we copy it from https://developercertificate.org/?
> > > >
> > > > > I would propose you add it as a separate file and link that, to
> > > > > avoid
> > > > > confusion about what "this license document" refers to.
> > > >
> > > > I do see that Eclipse had it on a page with other content.
> > > > Although,
> > > > the main focus of the page is the DCO.
> > > > https://www.eclipse.org/legal/DCO.php
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't look like https://developercertificate.org/ has a
> > > > filename
> > > > associated with the content. So, something like docs/dco.txt or
> > > > docs/developer-certificate-of-origin.txt?
> > >
> > > If we need to have a local copy, then I'd prefer a verbose name (so
> > > 2nd
> > > option), but can't we simply link to it?
> > >
> > > By adding Signed-of-by to your contributed patch, you certify
> > > that
> > > your contribution meets the guidelines of the
> > > <a href="https://developercertificate.org">Developer's
> > > Certificate
> > > of Origin</a>.
> > >
> > > Other than that, both the 'optional' and 'required' wordings look
> > > good
> > > to me, and I have no preference between the two; I've always signed
> > > my
> > > mesa commits with the understanding that it had the DCO meaning
> > > anyway.
> > >
> > > With either the full-text-copy in a verbose filename, or a simple
> > > link,
> > > and for either the 'optional' or the 'required' wording, this is:
> > > Reviewed-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at intel.com>
> >
> > Perfectly said Eric. I'm on the same page - with either a full copy
> > or
> > a link the patch is
>
> I find it a bit bad to link to text in a page we don't control for a
> few reasons:
>
> - The certificate could change without us knowing.
> - The site could disappear.
> - The docuemnt would require internet access to read and agree to.
>
> None of these are super-strong arguments, but IMO the text is small and
> short enough to include without hassle.
Those are all fair points; I know have a preference for having a copy,
but inline is probably better, we don't need to make it a separate file.
More information about the mesa-dev
mailing list