On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 04:17:41PM +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Andrew Eikum aeikum@codeweavers.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:03:25AM +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
If the patch is not changed, preserving the original sign-off is the right thing to do.
I thought Signed-off-by meant something like, "I agree to help debug this if something goes wrong." It seems wrong to make that statement to wine-devel on someone else's behalf. If I put a sign-off and send it to wine-staging that means something different to me than if I send it to wine-devel.
It should be taken to mean something like "I think that this is good enough to go into Wine". I don't think the meaning of Signed-off should change based on how the patch was submitted, particularly since patches can get into staging from various sources, including wine-devel.
Having a sign-off line on a patch floating around on the Internet shouldn't be taken as permission to submit the patch with my sign-off to wine-devel, in my opinion. Perhaps I've revised the patch elsewhere since then and I no longer think it's good enough for Wine.
In any case, the wiki currently disagrees with your interpretation:
"""Finally, your patch should include a Signed-off-by line. This line indicates that you accept responsibility for fixing any regressions caused by your patch."""
https://wiki.winehq.org/Submitting_Patches#The_commit_message
The wiki also suggests setting format.signOff, which would make sign-offs accidentally leak easily into patches uploaded to bugzilla, for example.
Andrew