From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263219AbUEWRzg (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 13:55:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263227AbUEWRzg (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 13:55:36 -0400 Received: from DSL022.labridge.com ([206.117.136.22]:20492 "EHLO Perches.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263219AbUEWRze (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 13:55:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission From: Joe Perches To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1085334933.8494.1448.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 10:55:33 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.