From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264964AbUEYQZR (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 12:25:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264965AbUEYQZR (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 12:25:17 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:61930 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264964AbUEYQZL (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 12:25:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 09:25:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: "La Monte H.P. Yarroll" cc: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission In-Reply-To: <40B369D5.7070805@timesys.com> Message-ID: References: <40B369D5.7070805@timesys.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 Tue, 25 May 2004, La Monte H.P. Yarroll wrote: > > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > >The plan is to make this very light-weight, and to fit in with how we > >already pass patches around - just add the sign-off to the end of the > >explanation part of the patch. That sign-off would be just a single line > >at the end (possibly after _other_ peoples sign-offs), saying: > > > > Signed-off-by: Random J Developer > > To avoid the requirement of all submissions going through a single person, > we have a system of formal authorizations. Specific people are authorized > to release certain classes of work. Would the community object to a slight > modifications to the Signed-off-by lines from TimeSys? E.g. > > Signed-off-by: La Monte H.P. Yarroll under TS00062 > > This completes the traceability path all the way back to the VP who signed > off on TS00062. I think this is great. In general, I think people who want to add their own extra tags after their email address should be able to do so. We might even have a few standard tags for things like asking for acknowledgement etc. > I THINK I have a case not covered here. I sometimes need to post > unpublished work done by other people at my company. Since the work is > not yet published, the GPL doesn't really grant me any special rights. > The authorization I use to publish is in fact NOT an open source > license. I think clause (b) could probably be weakened to cover my case. I think the "(unless I am permitted to submit under a different license)" part already covers that, but yes, if we want to get really technically anal about it we migth spell it out. > I'd like to include a link between the external path and our internal > procedures. Would the extra tag at the end be sufficient for that, or are you talking about something more? Linus