Re: [PATCH/RFC] Hacky version of a glob() driven config include

From: Bert Wesarg <bert.wesarg@googlemail.com>
Date: May 7, 2010, 19:52 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTimziTKL13VKIOcaS1TX1F_xvTVjH8Q398Yx36Us@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilG5OGjQcd1Vd1CdyOibFh4Po6jdfvSRNidrRzh@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 20:58, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 18:29, Bert Wesarg <bert.wesarg@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 18:56, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 06:00, Bert Wesarg <bert.wesarg@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 23:14, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not-signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> So you don't agree to the Developer's Certificate of Origin, don't you?
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by is for "if you want your work included in git.git"
>>> (according to Documentation/SubmittingPatches). I don't think this
>>> patch is ready for inclusion as-is, but I wanted to solicit comments
>>> on the general approach.
>>>
>>
>> Can you please quote SubmittingPatches for your argumentation.
>
> I already did, but here's the full paragraph I quoted from, for
> reference:
>
>        - if you want your work included in git.git, add a
>          "Signed-off-by: Your Name <you@example.com>" line to the
>          commit message (or just use the option "-s" when
>          committing) to confirm that you agree to the Developer's
>          Certificate of Origin
>

But where does the Developer's Certificate of Origin talks about non-legal aspects of patch submitting? E.g. correctness, quality, ...

I think the part "if you want your work included in git.git" is very misleading in this paragraph, and I propose to remove it.

Show 9 quoted lines

> I'm not seeking to include this work as-is in Git, so I added a
> Not-signed-off-by line to make that clear (as if all the bugs didn't
> do that already).
>
> I do agree to the Developer's Certificate of Origin, but just read the
> "Not-signed-off-by" as "you really don't want to apply this in its
> current state". I'm asking for comments so that I can produce an
> appliable patch, that one will have a Signed-off-by line.
>

And thats exactly where you mixed legal and technical aspects of patch submitting, and others may not (especially me, obviously). The S-o-b line has nothing to do with the technical aspect, or the quality, of the patch. Adding "Not-signed-off-by" (or even worse: changing it later to Signed-off-by) could actually mean that you stole the code from someone else.

Bert