Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission

Horst von Brand
2004-05-23T16:33:35Z

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> said:
> This is a request for discussion..

[...]

> So, to avoid these kinds of issues ten years from now, I'm suggesting that
> we put in more of a process to explicitly document not only where a patch
> comes from (which we do actually already document pretty well in the
> changelogs), but the path it came through.

How will the path be preserved? Does BK do it now? Can it be transferred
into CVS (for paranoid CVS-won't-screw-us-ever people)? Does this mean
that only the repositories contain the certificates, "final source"
doesn't?

[...]

> To keep the rules as simple as possible, and yet making it clear what it
> means to sign off on the patch, I've been discussing a "Developer's
> Certificate of Origin" with a random collection of other kernel
> developers (mainly subsystem maintainers). This would basically be what
> a developer (or a maintainer that passes through a patch) signs up for
> when he signs off, so that the downstream (upstream?) developers know
> that it's all ok:
>
> Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.0

[Nice idea snipped]

Just make sure the relevant open source licenses are in Documentation, and
so is the Certificate du jour. And hash out ideas/scripts to retrieve
proof(s) of origin for a particular line (consider its convoluted history,
originated by Joe Random Hacker, modified by Jane Random and rewritten by
Al Hacker, even Aunt Tillie might have touched it ;-).
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513