From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752186AbdGaNox (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:44:53 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:35214 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750923AbdGaNow (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:44:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:44:49 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Adam Borowski Cc: Pavel Machek , Ian Molton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Problematic culture around Signed-off-by Message-ID: <20170731134449.gjdaiopb2m63jc23@node.shutemov.name> References: <20170730185236.GA28293@amd> <20170731133411.3uvgi4sf5h4jwh4m@angband.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170731133411.3uvgi4sf5h4jwh4m@angband.pl> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 03:34:11PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 08:52:36PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > I've been away from kernel development for a bit, but I've returned and > > > I'm troubled by what seems to be an entrenched and widespread (IMO) > > > misuse of the "Signed-off-by:" in commits. > > > > > > I've now either been asked to sign off RFC quality patches "because its > > > quicker" on more than one occasion in the last week or so, and I've seen > > > others signing off code which clearly has no hope of going anywhere near > > > the kernel. (eg. // commented out lines) > > > > > > I was of the impression that Signed-off-by: was intended to be used on > > > essentially *finished* commits, indicating both readiness for inclusion > > > upstream and ones ownership of the copyright. > > > > > > Even if the intent is *purely* a copyright isue, Signing off > > > *everything* surely makes it far too easy for people to get junk into > > > the kernel. > > > > I normally sign-off everything... because getting patch without > > sign-off is nasty. If maintainer gets unclean, but signed-off patch, > > he can just clean it up, add his sign-off and continue normally. > > Yet there are cases with known but unobvious breakage (see below). > > > That may or may not be allowed if patch is not signed-off. (We are in > > lawyer teritory now.) > > > > So I'd recommend signing everything, and if patch is considered "not > > ready", make it clear in some other way. > > I think it'd be much better if you could suggest a new marker. Something > like "Copyright-but-not-Readiness-Signed-off-by:", "RFC-Signed-off-by:", > "WIP-Signed-off-by:", etc. I use (and saw other people used) "Not-Yet-Signed-off-by:" for this purpose. -- Kirill A. Shutemov