On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 18:29, Bert Wesarg <bert.wesarg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 18:56, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 06:00, Bert Wesarg <bert.wesarg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 23:14, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Not-signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx>" 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html