Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission

Pavel Machek
2004-06-10T19:52:54Z

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