From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264503AbUEXVZe (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 17:25:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264577AbUEXVZd (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 17:25:33 -0400 Received: from mailout08.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.20]:40932 "EHLO mailout08.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264503AbUEXVZb convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 17:25:31 -0400 From: tglx@linutronix.de (Thomas Gleixner) Reply-To: tglx@linutronix.de Organization: linutronix To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 23:20:20 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1YUY7-6fF-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <200405242250.38442.tglx@linutronix.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200405242320.20691.tglx@linutronix.de> X-Seen: false X-ID: Ee9GHqZZQeLBdT-T+FoH12AWdkALHWJvkGqqw81+gTdZIiTGdRj+0+@t-dialin.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 24 May 2004 23:05, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On the other hand, I'd rather have the process be "we always have the > sign-off", coupled with just plain common sense. Makes sense > So I'd rather encourage people to sign off on even the silly stuff, than > to have to constantly make a judgement call. At the same time, I think > that if somebody _didn't_ sign off on the simple stuff, we shouldn't just > run around in circles like hens in a hen-house, we should just say "hey, > we've got brains, the process isn't meant to be _stupid_". :) One more practical point. Module maintainers receive patches from various hackers and commit them after review with the appropriate "sign-offs" to a subsystem repository. Subsystem maintainer makes his monthly / whatever upstream update. Until now he just reviews the total changes from his last update til now. To keep your proposed procedure consistent he would be forced now to go through the "trusted" step by step commitments of his module maintainers, extract the "sign-offs" and add his own "sign-off" to each single step before pushing the improvements upstream. IMHO it would suffice for this situation, if the "sign-offs" are tracked in the subsystem repository and the subsystem maintainer signs off for the overall patch / contribution which is sent upstream. -- Thomas ________________________________________________________________________ Steve Ballmer quotes the statistic that IT pros spend 70 percent of their time managing existing systems. That couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that 99 percent of these systems run Windows, could it? ________________________________________________________________________ linutronix - competence in embedded & realtime linux http://www.linutronix.de mail: tglx@linutronix.de