[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission
    On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:05:40PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > 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.

    Actually, there is a question as to how to sign off on something that
    eventually gets rolled into something larger? Simply collect all the
    signatories? Andrew aggregates patches on a fairly regular basis. How
    about stuff that gets merged from the CVS trees of public projects? I
    think we need a way to say "this came from an aggregate external
    source" for patches that aren't simply passed along one by one.
    Perhaps something like:

    Signed-off-by: J Random hacker <> from

    > 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.


    Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
    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:0.020 / U:63.332 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site