From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264701AbUEXWBy (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 18:01:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264379AbUEXWBy (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 18:01:54 -0400 Received: from colin2.muc.de ([193.149.48.15]:11012 "HELO colin2.muc.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S264701AbUEXWBn (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 18:01:43 -0400 Date: 25 May 2004 00:01:36 +0200 Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 00:01:36 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission Message-ID: <20040524220136.GC18532@colin2.muc.de> References: <1YUY7-6fF-11@gated-at.bofh.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:31:49PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > You're just asking that they read it and confirm to the maintainer > > that they did, right? > > Right. We'd add it to the Documentation directory, and add pointers to it > to anything that mentions the "Signed-off-by:" thing (eg things like > SubmittingPatches). All just to make sure that people are aware of what it > means to say "Signed-off-by:" Hmm, but it would still take a long time until everybody does this by default (and there will be always people who don't read all the instructions before sending a patch, so it's not that this will stop at some point). Would you require maintainers to reject patches when the signoff lines are missing? I personally would hate to reject a value bug fix because of a policy like this... In practice I guess it would end up with that maintainers would spend a lot of time explaining to everybody what this new policy is about and possibly are forced to reject a lot of patches initially. -Andi