[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission
    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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.021 / U:16.568 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site