[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission
    On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 10:02:17AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > On Sun, 2004-05-23 at 08:46, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > Hola!
    > >
    > > This is a request for discussion..
    > Can we make this somewhat less cumbersome even by say, allowing
    > developers to file a gpg key and sign a certificate saying "all patches
    > that I sign with that key are hereby under this regime". I know you hate
    > it but the FSF copyright assignment stuff at least has such "do it once
    > for forever" mechanism making the pain optionally only once.

    I don't think that adding a single line to ever patch description is
    really "pain". Especially compared to the FSF proceedure :)

    Also, gpg signed patches are a pain to handle on the maintainer's side
    of things, speaking from personal experience. However our patch
    handling scripts could probably just be modified to fix this issue, but
    no one's stepped up to do it. And we'd have to start messing with the
    whole "web of trust" thing, which would keep us from being able to
    accept a patch from someone in a remote location with no way of being
    able to add their key to that web, causing _more_ work to be done to get
    a patch into the tree than Linus's proposal entails.


    greg k-h
    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:0.033 / U:4.148 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site