Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission

[Pavel Machek]

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         

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/