Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1693640 > unrolled thread

Problematic culture around Signed-off-by

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  Problematic culture around Signed-off-by Ian Molton <spyro2@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 13:50 +0200
    Re: Problematic culture around Signed-off-by Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-07-30 21:00 +0200

#1693640 — Problematic culture around Signed-off-by

Hi folks,

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.

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)

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.

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.

I've actually been deliberately NOT signing off my code because I *DONT*
want it surreptitiously applied with my name on it unless its 100% spot on.

WTH is going on? How can we fix this?

Is Signed-off-by: a lost cause for code quality?

Do we need to add a

Ready-for-mainline: {yes,no} field as well?

Have I just missed something? Maybe I'm just in a minority here? Whats
going on?

-Ian

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1699601

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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.
> 
> 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)
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web