[quote] To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on patches that are being emailed around. [/quote] So Linux kernel had some problems due to their huge developers/maintainers list and they solved them by using "sign-off" procedure. Do Barebox have that burden of "patches that can percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several layers of maintainers"? Also in chapter 11 there are rules which are pure bureaucratic. Bureaucracy is a thing of a large projects. Is Barebox such as big as Linux that it must have these rules too? Solving inexisting problems doesn't make life easier but complicates it. So, the question "what this (git commit -s) will give you?" is still open. 04.03.2016, 14:33, "Antony Pavlov" <antonynpavlov@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 13:42:14 +0300 > Aleksey Kuleshov <rndfax@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Don't get me wrong, but what this (git commit -s) will give you? >> What is the purpose of this? > > You can find the answer at https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > Please see chapter 11 (Sign your work). > >> 04.03.2016, 10:11, "Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> > Also, like you other patches this one lacks a SoB. Please commit with >> > git commit -s. > > -- > -- > Best regards, > Antony Pavlov _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
