From: Jacob Helwig Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 19:02:49 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Hacky version of a glob() driven config include Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:58, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 18:29, Bert Wesarg wrote: >> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 18:56, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >>> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 06:00, Bert Wesarg wrote: >>>> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 23:14, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Not-signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason >>>> >>>> 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 " 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 > > 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. > Having "[RFC]" instead of "[PATCH]" as the subject prefix is typically considered sufficient to indicate "this isn't actually intended for inclusion".