Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Sat, 2004-05-22 at 23:46, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So what I'm suggesting is that we start "signing off" on patches, to show 
> the path it has come through, and to document that chain of trust.  It 
> also allows middle parties to edit the patch without somehow "losing" 
> their names - quite often the patch that reaches the final kernel is not 
> exactly the same as the original one, as it has gone through a few layers 
> of people.

I suggest that the current BK PULL methods be indirected.

Instead of "signed-off-by", how about an explicit email to the
author(s) and a pre-commit email list with required ACK(s) prior
to commit?  Email acks are perhaps a better chain of trust than
a signature line.

Use of BK has lost some of the "many-eyeballs" positives of the past.
Today's BkCommits-Head list only allows an after-the-fact review.
Frequently, the patch author and sometimes the maintainer are the
only parties to the change.  A pre-commit list could allow comments by
interested parties on patches that today are under reviewed.