Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 May 2004 22:49:20 -0500 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: [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 <foo@bar.com> from http://baz.sourceforge.net
> 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.
"our"
-- 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 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/
| |