From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754489AbdG3Swj (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jul 2017 14:52:39 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:51573 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754193AbdG3Swi (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jul 2017 14:52:38 -0400 Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 20:52:36 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Ian Molton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: Problematic culture around Signed-off-by Message-ID: <20170730185236.GA28293@amd> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. >=20 > 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) >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAll+KvQACgkQMOfwapXb+vJpuQCfXyYwJgeX7INGTj9Gz7WszNvM znEAn2tvokNEu1vtvV83Lnf315v6xnvv =yU4h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3--