Linus on documenting patch provenance
Posted May 24, 2004 5:48 UTC (Mon) by tgape
In reply to: Linus on documenting patch provenance
Parent article: Linus on documenting patch provenance
This process is barely bureaucratic. Under a truly bureaucratic process, there would be
individuals who would need to be in the chain solely because the process says that they're in
the chain. That does not sound like what we're looking at here, with one occasional
exception. And last I heard, that one exception was working on getting himself as removed
as he could from that bit. Personally, this feels like a fairly slick implementation of what's
However, I think that it might need to have a bit of documentation about the occasional
contributors - If Joe "One Patch" Programmer[*] contributes one fairly major patch, and is
never heard from again, the only indication that it was a truly unencumbered patch was that
he said it was his original code. But if five years down the road, Incorporated Company,
Inc[**], claims that he was working for them at that time, and it's their code, things could still
I'd think that people who wrote a device driver or two, but contribute less than once a month
will still probably be on the trust list of at least one individual. However, they will probably
not be on multiple people's trust list unless they are active elsewhere in open source.
Someone who contributes occasional patches, rarely to the same component, however, will
probably take quite a while to get on a trust list.
[*] any resemblance to any actual Joe Programmer is purely coincidental.
[**] Insert standard sample company name disclaimer here.
to post comments)