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

[Jordan Justen]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Ian Romanick <idr at freedesktop.org> wrote:
> 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.

So, you're saying there is a stronger argument for adding this for
Mesa? (I agree. :)

I agree to your point that piglit is less likely to have an issue that
Signed-off-by can help with. But I also think that once a project has
decides to adopt Reviewed-by, etc, then the extra step of
Signed-off-by is trivial. At that point it seems there is some (small)
benefit gained in consistency of process between open source projects.

It also doesn't hurt that git makes Signed-off-by so easy. If I
actually had to type it out, then I probably would not think it was
worth it for piglit. :)

Do we think Signed-off-by may cause people to have reservations about
contributing code to piglit?

-Jordan