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

[Eric Anholt]

Jordan Justen <jljusten at gmail.com> writes:

> 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?

No, but I know from other projects that I *will* forget signed-off-by
and get nagged about it.

I think s-o-b is silly.  Whoever incorrectly put their s-o-b on a patch
will just say "Oh, I had no idea I was agreeing to *that*", since most
new people I see apply s-o-b at someone's else's request don't know
about the developer's certificate of origin, or don't read it when
pointed to it.  It's like a EULA we present to developers, and they just
click right through.

That said, I'm not super opposed if other people are excited about it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/piglit/attachments/20131115/14440ad1/attachment.pgp>