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

[Jordan Justen]

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Paul Berry <stereotype441 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. :)
>>
> 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.

Whoops. I guess I needed a bit of a transition before that question. :)

When I asked "What are the arguments against just following the
kernel's Signed-off-by practice?" I was directing the question to the
list.

In other words, lets have the discussion you were referring to.

-Jordan