Re: Nobody is THE one making contribution

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 27, 2020, 17:29 UTC
Message-ID: <5fe8c464bc190_e22d2086a@natae.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqtusa24oa.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >> Not "I signed off on my subjective approval of this patch & what it's
> >> for etc.", which seems to be closer to your interpretation.
> >
> > Why does it have to be only one meaning?
> >
> > Junio doesn't sign off on a patch that he doesn't think is good.
> > Same happens with all the lieutenants of Linux.

> The reason why some patches do not carry sign-off might be because
> the sender does not wish to certify and that's OK.

That's one reason.

> But if you are arguing that when you write "Signed-off-by:" your
> sign-off can mean something other than what DCO says it means,

The DCO has clause (d), which clearly states the developer must agree that a record of his/her contribution is maintained indefinitely (and that includes his/her sign off).

So there's at least two meanings in the DCO itself.

Additionally, that's the meaning of the phrase "sign off" in English; I approve of this.

-- 
Felipe Contreras