[Piglit] Require Signed-off-by for patches?

[Paul Berry]

On 13 November 2013 12:06, Jordan Justen <jljusten at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Paul Berry <stereotype441 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 13 November 2013 11:01, Frank Henigman <fjhenigman at google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd like to see an explanation of "signed-off-by," "reviewed-by" etc.
> >> Maybe as simple as:
> >>
> >> "Use the tags signed-off-by, reviewed-by, tested-by, acked-by as for
> linux
> >> kernel patches
> >> (see https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches)."
> >
> >
> > That seems reasonable.  Note, however, that Piglit doesn't consistently
> use
> > "signed-off-by":
> >
> > $ git log master | grep '^commit' | wc
> >    4885    9770  234480
> > $ git log master | grep -i 'signed-off-by' | wc
> >    1241    4969   70925
> >
> > (If you'd like to encourage us to start using "signed-off-by"
> consistently,
> > I'm happy to have a policy discussion about that, but the discussion
> should
> > happen in its own email thread rather than here, so that more people will
> > see it).
>
> What are the arguments against just following the kernel's
> Signed-off-by practice?
>
> It can't be difficultly since 'git commit -s' makes this trivial. :)
>
> -Jordan
>

I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way.  I just wanted to
make sure that if we decide to require it, the decision happens in the open
rather than in the reply to a patch, where it might get missed by a lot of
people.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/piglit/attachments/20131113/6b1824e8/attachment.html>