On 26.11.2021 13:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH 1/7] xz: add fall-through comments to a
> switch statement"):
>> On 26.11.2021 11:04, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> For this case, you provided some sort of an explanation but so far, I am
>>> still waiting for a link to confirm that the signed-off-by match the one
>>> on the ML.
>>
>> I haven't been able to easily find a mail archive holding this patch.
>
> I 100% agree with Julien on all points in this thread.
>
> Please can we keep the Linux S-o-b.
>
> Note that S-o-b is not a chain of *approval* (whose relevance to us is
> debateable) but but a chain of *custody and transmission* for
> copyright/licence/gdpr purposes. That latter chain is hightly
> relevant to us.
>
> All such S-o-b should be retained.
>
> Of course if you got the patch somewhere other than the Linux commit,
> then the chain of custody doesn't pass through the Linux commit. But
> in that case I expect you to be able to say where you got it.
I've submitted v2 with S-o-b restored as far as necessary to meet this
requirement. I did not restore all of them, because I continue to not
see the value of retaining them. You saying "is highly relevant to us"
is a statement, but not an explanation of why tags beyond those in the
original submissions need retaining.
Without me seeing the need / value, I'm afraid I see only two ways
forward: Either things are acceptable as they are now (and will be for
future similar imports), or it needs to be someone else to put time
into spotting and then pulling in such changes.
Jan
