Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 May 2004 14:05:40 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission |
| |
On Mon, 24 May 2004, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > What I'm missing in this discussion is a clear distinction between patches and > contributions.
Well, I'm not sure such a clear distinction exists.
Clearly there are patches that are so trivial that we simply don't care about the process, because they don't contain any "new work". Spelling fixes, and trivial one-liners.
On the other hand, I'd rather have the process be "we always have the sign-off", coupled with just plain common sense.
Any process that doesn't allow for common sense is just broken, and clearly from a _legal_ standpoint it doesn't matter if we track who fixed out (atrocious) spelling errors.
On the other hand, it if becomes a habit, and we just sign-off even on the trivial stuff, that's actually going to make the whole process a lot easier - simply by avoiding the bother of even having to think about it.
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_".
Linus - 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/
| |