Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 17/08/2015 22:19, Alex Elsayed wrote: <snip> >> This is where I see a subtle, but meaningful distinction: Accepting from >> aliases *which have submitted a DCO* means that the person behind the >> alias, even if we don't know their name, has bound themselves to a >> standard ov behavior. >> >> Accepting from arbitrary aliases does _not_ carry that meaning. > > Yes. Although we don't do formal background checks, we make sure that each > commit is Signed-off-by: the author as required by > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/SubmittingPatches#L22 which is > linked from the https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.rst > document that shows whenever someone submits a pull request. > > I also believe this is an important distinction and I would feel > uncomfortable if Ceph accepted contributions (aliases or not) that are not > Signed-off one way or the other. The kernel does something slightly different, in a very careful manner: Signed-off-by says that you have _submitted_ the DCO - as in, you must have, from the same address as you signed off by, emailed the DCO itself to the list. The S-o-B tag, then, simply says "If you look, you'll find my affirmation of intent to follow the DCO" - it is not, in itself, anything other than a pointer. This prevents people from copypasta'ing the S-o-B line as a magic incantation, without understanding the meaning. (Which the kernel has found _does_ happen _anyway_, but with the "actually submitted a DCO" requirement they can _detect_ that.) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
