Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Sun, 23 May 2004 10:55:33 -0700 |
| |
On Sat, 2004-05-22 at 23:46, Linus Torvalds wrote: > So what I'm suggesting is that we start "signing off" on patches, to show > the path it has come through, and to document that chain of trust. It > also allows middle parties to edit the patch without somehow "losing" > their names - quite often the patch that reaches the final kernel is not > exactly the same as the original one, as it has gone through a few layers > of people.
I suggest that the current BK PULL methods be indirected.
Instead of "signed-off-by", how about an explicit email to the author(s) and a pre-commit email list with required ACK(s) prior to commit? Email acks are perhaps a better chain of trust than a signature line.
Use of BK has lost some of the "many-eyeballs" positives of the past. Today's BkCommits-Head list only allows an after-the-fact review. Frequently, the patch author and sometimes the maintainer are the only parties to the change. A pre-commit list could allow comments by interested parties on patches that today are under reviewed.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |