Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> writes: > 05.10.2015 08:09, Markus Armbruster пишет: >> Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> writes: >> >>> 25.09.2015 19:08, Eric Blake wrote: >>>> On 09/25/2015 08:03 AM, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote: >>>>> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> > [] >>>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> >>> >>> Note there's no S-o-b line in the original patch (whole series, >>> looks like). Hopefully it is okay for such a really trivial >>> patch :) >>> >>> Applied, thanks! >> >> It may be legally safe, but do we really want to engage in judging >> whether patches are copyrightable or not? Besides, it sets a bad >> example. > > Sometimes I question our own sanity. Even for a trivial spelling fix > we require significantly more beaurocracy(sp) than the fix is worth, > and want formal rules instead of using common sense. This is a common > trend in the world, to formalize everything instead of thinking, the > world is becoming "candy". This reminded me an old movie, "Demolition > Man", -- the cops in the future reads instructions about what to do > in each situation they happened to come. But oh well, no one want to > take responsibility, that's okay ;) > > Sorry for somewhat non-technical answer, I'll revert this patch, > waiting for more beaurocracy.
Well, it could be worse, it could be CLA and copyright assignment. S-o-B is probably the most lightweight thing we can do to stay on relatively solid legal ground. In my opinion, applying the "must have S-o-B" rule unthinkingly is less effort than trying to identify cases where we can do without. >> Marc-André, please repost your patches ready for -trivial with your >> S-o-B, cc: qemu-trivial. > > Mind you, it was a large series, with wasn't intended for -trivial > at all. That's more rules and more beaurocracy. And many other > patches in that series didn't have s-o-b line too. Chances are these patches really need it, so Marc-André has to repost his series anyway.
