2010/4/28 Greg KH <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:02:57PM +0200, Carsten Munk wrote: >> Would it be possible to reword this in a manner so it does not sounds >> as biased towards Intel employees? Ie, treating non-member >> contributions with same process and review as member contributions. >> >> A suggestion could be referring to upstream approval by subsystem >> maintainer or by someone responsible for the subsystem/architecture in >> the MeeGo kernel maintainer team. > > Heh, that file is copied directly from the suse kernel tree, with only > s/suse/intel/ applied to it there. The reason that we (Novell) require > this, is that we want someone to "own" the kernel patch so that we know > who to blame if something goes wrong. > > As Intel is ultimately responsible for distributing and maintaining this > kernel tree, having someone within intel to "own" each patch in the same > manner makes lots of sense as well. > > So I would recommend just leaving it alone, unless you want to maintain > the whole kernel package for intel yourself? :) >
Obviously there should be someone in the kernel packaging team, who owns the kernel patch as in, someone who agreed with the patch. That part is fine with me. It's sane procedure and obvious. I would say that is the MeeGo kernel maintainer team, which may include one or more Intel employees, is the people ultimately responsible for distribute and maintaining. But why should anyone with a @intel.com or @linux.intel.com e-mail be exempt from having someone in the kernel maintainer team say they agree with the patch and 'own' it? That doesn't sound right in my ears. My proposal for re-wording: * The patch must include a Signed-off-by: or Acked-by: header which identifies the person in the kernel maintainers team who feels responsible for the patch. Which is sane practice. There shouldn't be preferential treatment, unless of course the idea is to have the MeeGo kernel maintainer team to be just for Intel employees. Or that I've misunderstood something and the idea of the MeeGo kernel package is it being a Intel produced product. Which doesn't sound right in my ears in a MeeGo context. Regards, Carsten Munk maemo.org distmaster _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
