From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262766AbUFJTvX (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:51:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262882AbUFJTvX (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:51:23 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.123]:47307 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262766AbUFJTvV (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:51:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:00:43 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission Message-ID: <20040610080043.GB4507@openzaurus.ucw.cz> References: <1YUY7-6fF-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <200405242250.38442.tglx@linutronix.de> <200405242320.20691.tglx@linutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200405242320.20691.tglx@linutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > 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. > This is actually a problem. It forces subsystem maintainer to have version control system and not to rm -rf it when he needs disk space. -- 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=28 ttl=51 time=448769.1 ms