[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130729184101.GX29916@titan.lakedaemon.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:41:01 -0400
From: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
To: "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] DT, maintainership,
development process
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:17:34PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 03:27:44PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > That said we have the same issue with commits with just two SOB tags if
> > a maintainer applies a patch that nobody has responded to. Are they going to
> > be regarded as "suspicious" too now?
> >
> > And what about trusting maintainers? If Linus trusts them enough to pull from
> > them, why can't everybody else trust them enough to assume that they don't do
> > bad things on purpose?
>
> Not just Linus -- it's 'turtles all the way down' here. As someone
> else suggested, a Singed-off-by in the merge commit should suffice
> here. Although, I haven't always made a habit of adding S-o-b to
> merge commits either...
Even then, you are the author of the merge commit. So the original
question of tracking a 'chain-of-custody' from submitter to Linus' tree
is still answerable. Even if there is only a single SoB in the patch.
thx,
Jason.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists