On the signature agree On 16-05-06 08:26 PM, David Lang wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2016, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > > > This gets back to the question about what we are trying to achieve by > signing the commits. > > If the purpose is to track who put what into the central tree, then > having the merge masters sign the merge commits is useful, and not an > imposition on people submitting patches. We also recognize that this is > all the signature represents. > > If the purpose is to track back to the originator of the patch, that's a > different, and much more difficult situation.
Agreed. > >> I think even with a large group of merge master, if pull requests are >> indeed planned as a means of making community participation easier, then >> requiring commits is counter-productive. > > I think you mean signed commits Erm, yeah it'd be somewhat difficult to not require commits :-P > >> In addition, it's not like pull requests should go directly into master >> anyway, but rather should be merged into a staging tree and only pulled >> into master once the person(s) responsible for giving the okay to the >> pull request have deemed it acceptable. >> >> This goes back to something I've said in other message, where I have >> suggested that it would be useful to have one or more >> experimental/testing branches where pull requests and patches could be >> more widely tested than an individual can do (in fact I'd argue that >> ideally *everyone* goes through some level of testing from someone other >> than themselves. > > Ideally, but we need to recognize that we don't live in an ideal world :-) True. Getting as close as is reasonably feasible is a good goal though. (Note all the weasel words...) Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
