[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:0.101 / U:8.768 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site