From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263862AbUEXXSl (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 19:18:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263875AbUEXXSk (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 19:18:40 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]:47085 "EHLO sccrmhc12.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263862AbUEXXS3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 19:18:29 -0400 Subject: Signed-off-by From: Albert Cahalan To: linux-kernel mailing list Cc: torvalds@osdl.org Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1085432152.952.956.camel@cube> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Date: 24 May 2004 16:55:52 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > (Seriously, while nobody has actually complained about > the suggested rules, I don't think anybody should feel > compelled to do the sign-off before we've had more > time to let people argue over it. People who feel > comfortable with the suggestion are obviously > encouraged to start asap, though). I had been hoping someone had just forged your email address. :-/ The wordy mix-case aspect is kind of annoying, and for all that we don't get to differentiate actions. I count: 1. came up with the design ideas 2. wrote the original patch 3. reviewed and passed on 4. modified 5. blindly passed on Maybe "blindly passed on" needs nothing. So I'm thinking, if we must bother with all this... designed: authored: reviewed: modified: Add "pirated:" if you like, so that searching for pirated code is easier than checking the evil bit.