From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263725AbUEXVi5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 17:38:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263944AbUEXVi5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 17:38:57 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:63126 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263725AbUEXViz (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 17:38:55 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:38:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Davide Libenzi cc: Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1YUY7-6fF-11@gated-at.bofh.it> 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 Mon, 24 May 2004, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > That was what I was implying. Example: > > me: Andrew this is the quit-smoking-patch-0.1.diff > Andrew: Where's your signature? Go read Documentation/xxx and repost the signed version > me: Oke doke. Reading ... > me: There you go, here's quit-smoking-patch-0.2.diff with the required signature Yes. On the other hand, I'm really hoping that since the whole procedure is so simple, after a few times this has happened, people will just do the sign-off without even thinking about it. So the "come back with a signed-off version" case hopoefully doesn't happen too much. So we'll have it for a while (and I'll probably add a check to my "apply" scripts to _check_ for the sign-off thing at least for anything bigger than a few lines), but I'm _hoping_ that in half a year people will wonder why we even discussed this. And I might be wrong. Maybe it's just going to be a constant irritant, and we'll have to just revisit the issue and decide that it was a stupid idea. Linus