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

[Jordan Justen]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net> wrote:
> Jordan Justen <jljusten at gmail.com> writes:
>> 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.

Paul updated HACKING to say we 'welcome' people to use it. Maybe we
just upgrade that to 'requested', and make it the norm for now. It can
feedback along with other review comments, but not enough for a respin
of a patch on its own.

> 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.

True. I think some people wouldn't necessarily bother themselves with
the details. But it is much easier to understand than any EULA, and it
is pretty clear with Signed-off-by that you are putting your name on
the line with regards to the patch. The more projects that do the same
thing, the more likely people are to understand what it means.

> That said, I'm not super opposed if other people are excited about it.

It looks like I'm the only one putting forth positive arguments, and I
wouldn't say I'm real concerned about it.

So, at this point I would say the nays have it.

-Jordan