Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission

["La Monte H.P. Yarroll" <piggy@timesys.com>]

Bradley Hook wrote:

> Steven Cole wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 25, 2004, at 1:06 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>
>>>> explanation part of the patch. That sign-off would be just a single 
>>>> line
>>>> at the end (possibly after _other_ peoples sign-offs), saying:
>>>>
>>>>     Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> well this obviously needs to include that you signed off on the DCO and
>>> not some other random piece of paper, and it probably should include 
>>> the
>>> DCO revision number you signed off on.
>>> Without the former the Signed-off-by: line is entirely empty afaics,
>>> without the later we're not future proof.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How about something like:
>>
>>     DCO 1.0 Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.org>
>>
>> This new process being "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
>> of cure" should retain the property of being lightweight and not
>> unduly burdensome.  This change seems to fall into that category.
>>
>>     Steven  -
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
>> linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>
>
> Why not design the DCO so that it assumes an author accepts the most 
> recent published version unless specified. You could then shorten the 
> line to:
>
> DCO-Sign-Off: Random J Developer <random@developer.org>

If I'm looking at a 15 year old document where do I go to find out what
"most recent published version" meant at that time?  This assumes we're
talking about a document that has a clear timestamp.  If we care about
the version number at all, it should be in every signoff line.

-- 
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell's sig