From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752346AbdGaN6o (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:58:44 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:52434 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751705AbdGaN6m (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:58:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:58:40 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Adam Borowski , Ian Molton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Problematic culture around Signed-off-by Message-ID: <20170731135840.GA9165@amd> References: <20170730185236.GA28293@amd> <20170731133411.3uvgi4sf5h4jwh4m@angband.pl> <20170731134449.gjdaiopb2m63jc23@node.shutemov.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170731134449.gjdaiopb2m63jc23@node.shutemov.name> 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 --u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon 2017-07-31 16:44:49, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 03:34:11PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 08:52:36PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > 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 inclu= sion > > > > 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 in= to > > > > the kernel. > > >=20 > > > 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. > >=20 > > Yet there are cases with known but unobvious breakage (see below). Yes, so you point up the breakage in the changelog... > > > That may or may not be allowed if patch is not signed-off. (We are in > > > lawyer teritory now.) > > >=20 > > > So I'd recommend signing everything, and if patch is considered "not > > > ready", make it clear in some other way. > >=20 > > I think it'd be much better if you could suggest a new marker. Somethi= ng > > like "Copyright-but-not-Readiness-Signed-off-by:", "RFC-Signed-off-by:", > > "WIP-Signed-off-by:", etc. >=20 > I use (and saw other people used) "Not-Yet-Signed-off-by:" for this > purpose. As I tried to explain, that is problematic. If I fix the patch, how do I submit it myself? But you are free to use Subject: [Not ready], or just sprinkle code with // comments... Anyway, applying not-ready patch is not something I usually seen happening. OTOH, not applying patches that were ready months ago is quite common :-). Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAll/N5AACgkQMOfwapXb+vI7AACfd7fqpdi6JG8o0Kl1S5k7tyFR f0AAoJcztpkKpBnPX1dCuYUpCbbjfNth =hsLn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24--