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

[Ian Romanick]

On 11/13/2013 05:12 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jordan Justen <jljusten at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What are the arguments against just following the kernel's
>> Signed-off-by practice?
> 
> What are the arguments for it?

Other than habit, there probably aren't any arguments in-favor for
piglit.  The sorts of things that patch signing is designed protect
against really aren't relevant for piglit.  The probability of someone
distributing piglit (are there any?) being sued because a third party's
IP somehow leaked into the project seems infinitesimal, at best.

> The kernel's submitting patches documentation says that
> 
>  - Signed-off-by: this is a developer's certification that he or she has
>    the right to submit the patch for inclusion into the kernel.  It is an
>    agreement to the Developer's Certificate of Origin, the full text of
>    which can be found in Documentation/SubmittingPatches.  Code without a
>    proper signoff cannot be merged into the mainline.
> 
> and
> 
> The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
> development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
> 
> I think we're just getting into Parkinson's law of triviality...
> _______________________________________________
> Piglit mailing list
> Piglit at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit