List for cgit developers and users
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: john at keeping.me.uk (John Keeping)
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] ui-shared: Use CRLF in HTTP headers as per RFC 7230
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:23:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160512102318.GB4483@john.keeping.me.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160511201527.GA17971@partyvan.eu>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 08:15:27PM +0000, Juuso Lapinlampi wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 08:57:52PM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
> > "generally recognized" is a bit nebulous, which is why a blanket policy
> > is safer as well as much simpler to police.
> 
> Guess we are going to wait for this bit to rot here over a silly blanket
> policy then, as I have established my authorship already with Git
> features and argued about threshold of originality. Same goes for the
> other patches I submitted under the project's free software license
> (GPLv2).

"theshold of originality" is crap for two reasons:

1. if we use it as a criterion for requiring a sign-off then someone has
   to decide for each and every patch whether a sign-off is required,
   which increases the workload for maintainers with no benefit
2. IANAL but if you give a lawyer the choice between asserting that
   something is too small to matter for copyright or getting a sign-off
   certifying the DCO, I'll bet good money on them choosing the latter.

> I know to be very reasonable with code review processes but this
> Signed-off-by: policy is just too much.

If we were talking about a CLA I'd agree, but adding one line to the
commit message to certify that you have the rights to submit the patch
under the project's license doesn't seem that onerous to me (especially
when git-commit or git-format-patch will add it for you with "-s").


  reply	other threads:[~2016-05-12 10:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-11 17:48 wub
2016-05-11 18:30 ` john
2016-05-11 19:31   ` john
2016-05-11 19:38   ` wub
2016-05-11 19:57     ` john
2016-05-11 20:15       ` wub
2016-05-12 10:23         ` john [this message]
2016-05-12 15:45     ` Jason
2016-05-12 15:45 ` Jason

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160512102318.GB4483@john.keeping.me.uk \
    --to=cgit@lists.zx2c4.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).