Slashdot Mirror
Process Improvements in the Kernel Development
Kalki writes "In an e-mail to the Linux kernel mailing list, sent Saturday, Torvalds proposed that kernel developers begin certifying that the code that they contribute is entitled to be included in the Linux kernel as well as a technique for "signing off on patches" that would better track which developers had handled source code contributions. check this Infoworld story on it."
There is an article on this subject at groklaw
It covers more or less the same territory in a bit more depth.
This is the e-mail itself, as posted to LKML by Linus - on Sunday, not Saturday.
Posted anonymously to avoid karma whoring.
Here's the post discussed in the article.
Remember that Linus "retires" from a version of the kernel when he thinks it is stable enough for a maintainer to supervise. Once he is freed from maintaining the current "release" version of the kernel, he starts working on the next development version.
He'll pass version 2.6 to someone and then start work on 2.7, just as he passed 2.4 to Marcelo Tosatti and then began working on 2.5.
You may read the lkml thread and Linus post on kerneltrap.
Just thought it could be interesting...
He's already handed over much of the release management for 2.6 to Andrew Morton. Linus is more focused on the development tree at the moment.
I think it is more about having someone say that they own the copyright of the work and have the right to GPL it. It doesn't mean no anonymous contribs, but somebody (one of the people with BK commit access would have to be able to certify it on behalf of the other person so they should knwo the person even if it is never identified publicly.
See my journal, I write things there
And that someone would be Andrew Morton.
text
Here's the thread in question.
Linus' original email linked further down makes clear the intention to track where the code came from start to finish.
NERDS!!!!
Over years, Linux development team has become an enterprise. Finally they realised that they need accounting.
Just a clarification: What Linus is doing is making the accountability easier and somewhat more complete, not adding it. As he pointed out in his LKML post, Linux developers have been able to find the origin of every bit of code they've needed to, but the process has been painful and has required a little guesswork, particularly for the oldest stuff.
What he's proposing here is just a slight formalization and elaboration of the process that has been used for years. Currently, if I submit a patch to LKML to fix, say, a VFS bug, it will get poked, prodded and adjusted on the mailing list until people think it's clean and solid. Then the subsystem maintainer (Al Viro, in this case) will pick it up, probably tweak it some more, attach a "From" comment, stating that I am the author and forward it to Linus. Linus will review it, accept it, and his scripts will add my name into the changelog and the CREDITS file.
Since all of this happens on the public, archived, mailing list, there's plenty of accountability, but figuring out the sequence of events requires digging through the archives, and there may not be any obviously ideal search criteria.
Now, Linus wants me to attach my name myself, and to do it in a standardized format so that it's more searchable. Further, he wants everyone else who modifies the patch in any way to add their stamp as well, providing a change history in the patch itself. It's a weak change history, since it doesn't describe what changed, but it provides the starting point for searching the archives.
So, what Linus is asking for isn't so much to create a better accountability trail as it is to make the existing trail easier to follow. It's an ease-of-use optimization.
Well, there is one way in which this is perhaps a significant enhancement, and that is that Linus wants to formally define the legal commitment a contributor makes. In a reasonable world, this should be unnecessary, since if I contribute some code that I don't own, I should be the one held liable for the copyright infringement, not the others who used it in good faith. In the litigious world we live in, however, it's a good idea to formally spell it out, and make clear to everyone that by attaching their name to a patch, they're providing a certain warranty of their right to contribute it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Here is the full posting by Linus and the live comments thread on LWN: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission
Stefan2100 (http://knowledgebusinessreview.net/)
And I wonder why the submitter didn't think to link to the same story on Groklaw!
Go figure?