Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Appropriately mark optional fields as omitempty - #282
Conversation
wking
commented
Dec 23, 2015
arcnmx
commented
Dec 23, 2015
yeah, um... that doesn't work for me. Can I assert (a) and (b) and I guess have someone else sign / commit it..? |
hqhq
commented
Dec 24, 2015
@arcnmx Sorry I don't quite get it, what do you mean by this? |
arcnmx
commented
Dec 24, 2015
@hqhq I can certainly sign it, but it will say |
hqhq
commented
Dec 24, 2015
@arcnmx You can change to your real name and email by hand when committing the patch. |
jonboulle
commented
Dec 24, 2015
I think the issue is that s/he would like to remain anonymous, not that s/he doesn't know how to do it. @arcnmx I'm happy to put up this patch on your behalf if you want. |
wking
commented
Dec 24, 2015
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 05:52:42AM -0800, Jonathan Boulle wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't understand what motivated the “no |
arcnmx
commented
Dec 24, 2015
@jonboulle thanks, that would be appreciated.
Well, let's be pedantic developers for a moment here! It says the sign-off must be under a legal name, so the paper trail leads to someone, but the origin of a change does not necessarily have to be tied to a name. The signer just has to assert But eh, I think it's a silly restriction. It's taken from the linux kernel |
jonboulle
commented
Dec 24, 2015
This is a change I'd also like to see happen so before waiting for #282 (comment) I've put up #283 |
wking
commented
Dec 24, 2015
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 08:37:41AM -0800, arcnmx wrote:
It's this last bit that I think it tricky. But if @jonboulle is |
arcnmx
commented
Dec 24, 2015
Eh, you're just asserting that, to the best of your knowledge, the code signed off is licensed under a license compatible with the project. It's no different than incorporating any other open source code or dependency really. You're not even on the hook for anything if it somehow goes wrong :P In any case, I don't like the requirement :< |
hqhq
commented
Dec 25, 2015
Picked up by #283 |
runc speccreates files with plenty of empty arrays,nullvalues, and empty strings. While I'm mostly concerned about the latter case (some parsers will consider"" != undefined), the rest is ugliness that could be done without anyway.