Re: Problematic culture around Signed-off-by

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1489 bytes --]

Hi!

> I've been away from kernel development for a bit, but I've returned and
> I'm troubled by what seems to be an entrenched and widespread (IMO)
> misuse of the "Signed-off-by:" in commits.
> 
> I've now either been asked to sign off RFC quality patches "because its
> quicker" on more than one occasion in the last week or so, and I've seen
> others signing off code which clearly has no hope of going anywhere near
> the kernel. (eg. // commented out lines)
> 
> I was of the impression that Signed-off-by: was intended to be used on
> essentially *finished* commits, indicating both readiness for inclusion
> upstream and ones ownership of the copyright.
> 
> Even if the intent is *purely* a copyright isue, Signing off
> *everything* surely makes it far too easy for people to get junk into
> the kernel.

Well, maintainers should not apply obvious junk to their trees,
signed-off or not.

I normally sign-off everything... because getting patch without
sign-off is nasty. If maintainer gets unclean, but signed-off patch,
he can just clean it up, add his sign-off and continue normally.

That may or may not be allowed if patch is not signed-off. (We are in
lawyer teritory now.)

So I'd recommend signing everything, and if patch is considered "not
ready", make it clear in some other way.

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]