[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Clarify check-in requirements for mixed-author patches
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
There was a question raised recently about the requriements for
checking in a patch which was originally written by one maintainer,
then picked up and modified by a second maintainer, and which they now both
agree should be checked in.
It was proposed that in that case, the following set of tags would suffice:
Signed-off-by: First Author <...>
Signed-off-by: Second Author <...>
Reviewed-by: First Author <...>
The rationale was as follows:
1. The patch will be a mix of code, whose copyright is owned by the
various authors (or the companies they work for). It's important to
keep this information around in the event, for instance, of a license
change or something else requiring knowledge of the copyright owner.
2. The Signed-off-by of the Second Author approves not only their own
code, but First Author's code; the Reviewed-by of the First Author
approves not only their own code, but the Second Author's code. Thus
all the code has been approved by a maintainer, as well as someone who
was not the author.
In support of this, several arguments were put forward:
* We shouldn't make it harder for maintainers to get their code in
than for non-maintiners
* The system we set up should not add pointless bureaucracy; nor
discourage collaboration; nor encourage contributors to get around
the rules by dropping important information. (For instance, by
removing the first SoB, so that the patch appears to have been
written entirely by Second Author.)
Concerns were raised about two maintainers from the same company
colluding to get a patch in from their company; but such maintainers
could already collude, by working on the patch in secret, and posting
it publicly with only a single author's SoB, and having the other
person review it.
There's also something slightly strange about adding "Reviewed-by" to
code that you've written; but in the end you're reviewing not only the
code itself, but the final arrangement of it. There's no need to
overcomplicate things.
Encode this in MAINTAINERS as follows:
* Refine the wording of requirement #2 in the check-in policy; such
that *each change* must have approval from someone other than *the
person who wrote it*.
* Add a paragraph explicitly stating that the multiple-SoB-approval
system satisfies the requirements, and why.
Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxx>
For clarity: As of the community call, we don't have consensus on this; so we should wait I think at least 2 weeks before checking it in to allow THE REST to object if they wish (unless we get Acks / R-b's from everyone, of course).
-George
|
