Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission

Linus Torvalds
2004-05-25T16:25:17Z

On Tue, 25 May 2004, La Monte H.P. Yarroll wrote:
>
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> >The plan is to make this very light-weight, and to fit in with how we
> >already pass patches around - just add the sign-off to the end of the
> >explanation part of the patch. That sign-off would be just a single line
> >at the end (possibly after _other_ peoples sign-offs), saying:
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.org>
>
> To avoid the requirement of all submissions going through a single person,
> we have a system of formal authorizations. Specific people are authorized
> to release certain classes of work. Would the community object to a slight
> modifications to the Signed-off-by lines from TimeSys? E.g.
>
> Signed-off-by: La Monte H.P. Yarroll <piggy@timesys.com> under TS00062
>
> This completes the traceability path all the way back to the VP who signed
> off on TS00062.

I think this is great. In general, I think people who want to add their
own extra tags after their email address should be able to do so. We might
even have a few standard tags for things like asking for acknowledgement
etc.

> I THINK I have a case not covered here. I sometimes need to post
> unpublished work done by other people at my company. Since the work is
> not yet published, the GPL doesn't really grant me any special rights.
> The authorization I use to publish is in fact NOT an open source
> license. I think clause (b) could probably be weakened to cover my case.

I think the "(unless I am permitted to submit under a different license)"
part already covers that, but yes, if we want to get really technically
anal about it we migth spell it out.

> I'd like to include a link between the external path and our internal
> procedures.

Would the extra tag at the end be sufficient for that, or are you talking
about something more?

Linus