From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264787AbUEYG6C (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 02:58:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264791AbUEYG6C (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 02:58:02 -0400 Received: from colo.khms.westfalen.de ([213.239.196.208]:56795 "EHLO colo.khms.westfalen.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264787AbUEYG56 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 02:57:58 -0400 Date: 25 May 2004 08:43:00 +0200 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: torvalds@osdl.org cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <99W4urOXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: <1ZBgK-68x-3@gated-at.bofh.it> Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh13 R/C435 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? References: <1ZBgK-68x-3@gated-at.bofh.it> X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org torvalds@osdl.org (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 25.05.04 in <1ZBgK-68x-3@gated-at.bofh.it>: > On Mon, 24 May 2004, Albert Cahalan wrote: > > > > The wordy mix-case aspect is kind of annoying, and for > > all that we don't get to differentiate actions. > > I actually really really don't want to differentiate actions. There's > really no reason to try to separate things out, and quite often the > actions are mixed anyway. Besides, if they all end up having the same > technical meaning ("I have the right to pass on this patch") having > separate flags is just sure to confuse the process. > > So what I want is something _really_ simple. Something that is > unambigious, and cannot be confused with something else. And in > particular, I want that sign-off line to be "strange" enough that there is > no possibility of ever writing that line by mistake - so that it is clear > that the only reason anybody would write something like "Signed-off-by:" > is because it meant _that_ particular thing. So it might be wise to add something approximately like this: Signed-off-by: Random C Developer For: Linux kernel Sometimes, pieces wander from one project into another, and tracking that as well could possibly help. MfG Kai