From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262882AbUFJTwy (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:52:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262837AbUFJTvh (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:51:37 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.123]:48843 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262772AbUFJTvV (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:51:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:58:04 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Matt Mackall Cc: Andy Isaacson , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission Message-ID: <20040610125803.GD4507@openzaurus.ucw.cz> References: <20040525164232.GD28169@fieldses.org> <20040525180834.GC26081@hexapodia.org> <20040525201041.GZ5414@waste.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040525201041.GZ5414@waste.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > > The patch-submission process can be more complicated than a simple path > > > > up a heirarchy of maintainers--patches get bounced around a lot > > > > sometimes. > > > > > > Yes. And documenting the complex relationships obviously can't be sanely > > > done. The best we can do is a "it went through these people". > > > > > > Perfect is the enemy of good. If we tried to be perfect, we'd never get > > > anything done. > > > > Agreed, but... > > > > > > * I write a patch. Developers X and Y suggest significant > > > > changes. I make the changes before I submit them to maintainer > > > > Z. Suppose the changes are significant enough that I no longer > > > > feel comfortable representing myself as the sole author of the > > > > patch. Should I also be asking developer X and Y to add their > > > > own "Signed-off-by" lines? > > > > > > That, my friend, is a matter of your own taste and conscience. My answer > > > is that if you wrote it all, you clearly don't _need_ to. At the same > > > time, I think that it's certainly in good taste to at least _ask_ them. > > > Wouldn't you agree? > > > > This is one example of a general class of problem; another example is > > "Andrew integrated 15 patches into -mm5". When you have an aggregate > > work representing a conglomeration of works from several different > > developers, it becomes unwieldy to apply "tags" as you're suggesting. > > > > What if I send a patch to l-k, and Bruce forwards it on to Andrew; > > meanwhile, Joe sends another patch to l-k and Peter forwards it on to > > Andrew. Andrew integrates both patches, as well as several unrelated > > bits he creates himself, into -mm77, which he sends to Linus and gets > > integrated. > > But -mm is actually maintained as a serial set of patches, each > submitted independently. Occassionally patches are rolled together > here, but that's the exception. Well, -mm might be okay, but you force everyone to work like that. > The case I'm still worried about is something like a filesystem that > gets worked on out-of-tree for an extended period of time and gets > submitted in a lump. If it's developed inside the confines of a > corporation, sure, it can be signed off by one person in authority, > but if it's developed in the open with numerous outside submissions, > it's less clear what the right thing is. Aggregating 500 > signed-off-bys might get messy. I really hope it is okay to just sign it off and take a blame. Imagine more difficult scenario: tivo has kernel with about 1000 changes, and I have their vmlinux. At this point I can ask them about source, and get it. Now I select 333 good patches... I guess right thing here is to sign it off myself as I have got the vmlinux? I do not think that tivo/wlan vendors are going to do anything not forced upon them by GPL, and I do not think GPL forces you to sign off... Pavel -- 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=28 ttl=51 time=448769.1 ms