On Mon, Feb 20, 2006, Edgar Toernig wrote: > Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > > > I just re-read the original thread with the patches by Edgar, > > and although requested, he didn't provide a Signed-off-by: > > I've already addressed that and got flamed. I don't want to > start a discussion about that on the list. So once again to > make my (non-negotiable) position clear: I will not add a > 'Signed-off-by'. > > If the committer wants to track patch history he can put me in > as the author or add a 'Submitted-by'. If he thinks he cannot > sign off himself without someone else signing first I can only > say "Welcome to the Club". Unfortunately this doesn't work. The Signed-off-by thing was Linus' answer to the SCO lawsuit and related legal issues. The meaning of the "Developer's Certificate of Origin" is clearly spelled out in Documentation/SubmittingPatches. If *the original patch author* (or copyright holder) refuses to give the Signed-off-by, the patch cannot be applied, for *legal* reasons. > > One of the patches also sparked some discussion which > > was left unresolved... > > Well, it's hard to discuss something if the other side does not > know the hardware/driver. > > It came down to: That's more than the 'obviously correct two line > diff' so it's better to not apply it so it won't break stuff. So it happens... People disagree on many things, sometimes for reasons impossible to comprehend. ;-/ What usually works best is to take the "problematic" patch out of the series to get the other patches applied, then resend it to the list with a call for testers. > > It might be useful if Edgar would resend his patch set, > > Well, I've send it for 2.6.13, skipped 2.6.14 (because of broken bttv), > for 2.6.15, and I'll send it again for 2.6.16. Well, I can't keep you from sending it, but without Signed-off-by it can't be applied. :-( And actually you are also blocking others from fixing the problems, because they cannot copy your code and thus would have to come up with a different way of fixing it. So please consider resending your patches with a Signed-off-by. > I don't care a bit whether the gatekeepers (for dvb-bt8xx there's no > one I would call a 'maintainer') Sounds somewhat arrogant, don't you think so? Of course *you* could do it better... Admittedly, developing Linux kernel patches takes some patience, because patches get reviewed and discussed, and sometimes people disagree. Get used to it. It's part of Linux culture. Johannes _______________________________________________ linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
