Re: Nobody is THE one making contribution

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

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.

I know some people try to indicate that a patch is not ready for
inclusion as-is by omitting sign-off.  That way, it would not be
enough for the maintainer to pick it up and add his or her own
sign-off---the maintainer has to go back to the author and ask it to
be signed off (which happens).

But I try not to use the lack of sign-off on my patches to mean
anything, because the technique does not work for me.  A patch I
sent without my sign-off may later turn out to be worth keeping, and
when I run "git am -s" on it, I'd have a full sign-off chain anyway.
There is no "going back to the author and ask" necessary.

In any case, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve by
mentioning the cases where patches are not signed-off.

The reason why some patches do not carry sign-off might be because
the sender does not wish to certify and that's OK.  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, what those people who
sometimes do not sign-off their work do would not be useful at all
to support your claim, I would have to say.  You need to find other
people's signed-off patch when they did not mean to certify them
under DCO, if "it does not have to be only one meaning" is what you
want to support.