From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263107AbUEWPx5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 11:53:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263147AbUEWPx5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 11:53:57 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:47081 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263107AbUEWPxy (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 11:53:54 -0400 Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 08:53:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Arjan van de Ven cc: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission In-Reply-To: <1085299337.2781.5.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Message-ID: References: <1085299337.2781.5.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 23 May 2004, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > Can we make this somewhat less cumbersome even by say, allowing > developers to file a gpg key and sign a certificate saying "all patches > that I sign with that key are hereby under this regime". I know you hate > it but the FSF copyright assignment stuff at least has such "do it once > for forever" mechanism making the pain optionally only once. One reason that I'd prefer not to is simply the question of "who maintains the certificates?" I certainly don't want to maintain any stateful paperwork with lots of people. This is why I personally would prefer it all to be totally state-less. Also, there is a _fundamental_ problem with signing a patch in a global setting: the patches _do_ get modified as they move through the system (maybe just bug-fixes, maybe addign a missing piece, maybe removing a controversial part). So the signature ends up being valid only on your part of the communication, and then after that it needs something else. And what I do _not_ want to see is a system where if somebody makes a trivial change, it then has to go back to you to be re-signed. That just would be horrible. With those (pretty basic) caveats in mind, I don't see any fundamental problem in a PGP key approach, if it's a "local" thing between developers. In fact, I think PGP-signed patches are something we may want to look at from a "trust the email" standpoint, but I think it should be a _local_ trust. And part of that "local" trust might be a private agreement between ddevelopers that "it's ok to add the sign-off line for Arjan when the patch has come with that PGP signature" when the patch is passed on. So to me, the sign-off procedure is really about documenting the path, and if a PGP key is there in certain parts of the path, then that would be a good thing, but I think it's a separate thing from what I'm looking for. Linus