Sage Weil wrote: > On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, Alex Elsayed wrote: >> 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.) > > I can't find any reference to emailing a copy of the DCO to any address in > SubmittingPatches or elsewhere. Are you sure this is the case? See > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > > FWIW, LWN's coverage of James's talk on the DCO last year matches my > understanding: > > https://lwn.net/Articles/592503/ > > ... > > As far as aliases go in sign-offs, I don't see that it's an issue. In my > opinion the sign-off is more about due diligence than anything else--that > we have made a good faith effort to ensure that the code is made in > compliance with the license. > > James contends that it's also more cleaning out offending code when a > problematic contributor is identified and less about liability for that > individual, so as long as an alias is used consistently I'm not sure it > makes a difference. Lots of people go by names that are not technically > their legal names, but shortened or anglicized versions of them, but as > long as they are sufficient to associate the contribution with the > contributor it serves its purpose. Hm, you're right. Not sure where I got that, then - weird. -- 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
