Re: DCO: Was: Re: Contributing to gdb
Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.binutils,gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:57:41 -0300 > Cc: GDB Development <[email protected]>, binutils <[email protected]> > From: Guinevere Larsen via Gdb <[email protected]> > > On 6/17/24 12:00 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 5:23 AM Guinevere Larsen via Gdb > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Just a heads up, too, if your patch isn't a trivial fix, you might need > >> to sign a bit of paperwork giving the copyright of changes to GDB to the > >> Free Software Foundation before we are able to accept the changes. I > >> mention this up front because I know a few people who were turned off by > >> the idea, even though the process itself isn't complicated. > > I just noticed that GDB (and binutils) are currently not accepting > > DCO's like both glibc > > (https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist#Copyright_and_license) > > and GCC (https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal) are now accepting. > > Has there been any talk about accepting DCOs for gdb and binutils? Or > > has this not been brought up yet? > > I haven't heard of it yet, every time I see a new contributor with a > patch accepted, the copyright assignment is always the way everyone > uses, and it has stalled the last release. > > I for one would absolutely love if we could use a quick DCO line instead > of current process. I don't think the risks which come with accepting DCOs are justified in GDB at least. The number of one-off contributors to GDB is basically zero.