Re: 2.29 freeze update: Last fortnight

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>]

On 1/22/19 10:17 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> We're digressing, but y'all started it so... ;)
> 
> On 22/01/19 6:53 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> this was mentioned earlier in the ChangeLog discussion:
>>>
>>> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/build-aux/gitlog-to-changelog
>>>
>>> (see SPECIAL SYNTAX part: it uses Co-authored-by:)
>>  
>> That is *in addition* to Signed-off-by: which is just ignored?
>>
>> I can still request the authors provide their same kernel-like
>> sign-off, like I provide my Reviewed-by: to track how many things
>> I've reviewed (which I think is also important for the community
>> to acknowledge).
>>
>> I agree that in the fully-automated future I will need Co-authored-by:
>> syntax.
> 
> The context of that comment is that Signed-off-by has a specific
> meaning, i.e. a DCO.  Using it in the glibc context may be confusing
> because we have copyright assigment in place.
> 
> I had also thought that using DCO in the glibc context would be
> overloading its meaning but after thinking about it for a while, it
> shouldn't and both ought to be able to coexist.  Of course, IANAL, etc.

In glibc I expect that unofficially all of our process is equivalent to
a DCO *plus* copyright assignment, but we don't verbalize our DCO that way.

The reason I prefer DCO is that it's easier to explain:

* DCO + copyright assignment.

Than to explain something entirely new. A lot of other communities are simply
adopting the kernel DCO because it's well known, and there is a lot of value
in that.

My opinion is that a Co-authored-by: should be equivalent to multiple
Signed-off-by: lines e.g. treat Co-authored-by: as an alias to Signed-off-by:,
but those projects not wishing to use the implied DCO can use Co-authroed-by.

We should probably move this off this thread.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.