[LinuxBIOS] r2550 - trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom
segher at kernel.crashing.org
Sun Feb 11 03:42:43 CET 2007
>> If you don't sign off on something, you can't put it
>> into the public tree -- that's the whole philosophy
>> behind the DCO, to have all contributions traceable
>> to their origins, by having a "trail of bread crumbs".
> Note I did not write the patch and the original author has of course
> signed off, but is unable to commit herself.
[I don't mean you personally of course].
You can only commit a patch to the tree if you take
responsibility for it (at some level), and that means
you'll have to sign off on it.
>> Yes. You got the code, you passed it on. You better make
>> sure that you know what you're signing for though -- i.e.,
>> you should make reasonably sure that the person who sent
>> you the patch had the right to do so (whether something is
>> sent via a mailing list makes no difference at all btw --
>> conducting your business in the open doesn't change the
> Again, the poster has signed off.
When you want to pass the code on (for example, by
committing it to the repo), you have to sign off on
it as well.
>> Well it would be really weird to sign-off on a patch that
>> you don't agree with, so acked-by is quite redundant if you
>> already signed off on a patch.
> I would first review (ack) and then commit (sign off) ..
> It seems neither the sign-off nor the ack fits for just a commit.
You *need* a signed-off for a commit though, that's what the
DCO is all about.
If what you want is keeping track of committers -- that's not
a property of a patch, but a property of the repo; any good
SCM tracks that for you automatically.
More information about the coreboot