Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission

[Matt Mackall]

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:05:40PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 24 May 2004, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 
> > What I'm missing in this discussion is a clear distinction between patches and 
> > contributions.
> 
> Well, I'm not sure such a clear distinction exists.

Actually, there is a question as to how to sign off on something that
eventually gets rolled into something larger? Simply collect all the
signatories? Andrew aggregates patches on a fairly regular basis. How
about stuff that gets merged from the CVS trees of public projects? I
think we need a way to say "this came from an aggregate external
source" for patches that aren't simply passed along one by one.
Perhaps something like:

Signed-off-by: J Random hacker <foo@xxxxxxx> from http://baz.sourceforge.net

> Any process that doesn't allow for common sense is just broken, and
> clearly from a _legal_ standpoint it doesn't matter if we track who fixed
> out (atrocious) spelling errors.

"our"

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/