Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> 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. > The reason why some patches do not carry sign-off might be because > the sender does not wish to certify and that's OK. That's one reason. > 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, The DCO has clause (d), which clearly states the developer must agree that a record of his/her contribution is maintained indefinitely (and that includes his/her sign off). So there's at least two meanings in the DCO itself. Additionally, that's the meaning of the phrase "sign off" in English; I approve of this. -- Felipe Contreras
