From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-vk0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22a]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1abtzy-0006ES-Fj for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:58:47 +0000 Received: by mail-vk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id e185so61549004vkb.1 for ; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 09:58:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4943131457093089@web17h.yandex.ru> References: <1457009332-27205-1-git-send-email-rndfax@yandex.ru> <20160304071152.GC21869@pengutronix.de> <4064341457088134@web21g.yandex.ru> <20160304145955.a02cc43b4d49ae2cc2897f97@gmail.com> <4943131457093089@web17h.yandex.ru> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 09:58:24 -0800 Message-ID: From: Andrey Smirnov List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ehci-hcd: remove useless timeout To: Aleksey Kuleshov Cc: "barebox@lists.infradead.org" On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Aleksey Kuleshov wrote: > [quote] > To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can > percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several > layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on > patches that are being emailed around. > [/quote] > > So Linux kernel had some problems due to their huge developers/maintainers list > and they solved them by using "sign-off" procedure. > Do Barebox have that burden of "patches that can > percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several > layers of maintainers"? > > Also in chapter 11 there are rules which are pure bureaucratic. > Bureaucracy is a thing of a large projects. > Is Barebox such as big as Linux that it must have these rules too? > IANAL, but AFAIU those "rules which are pure bureaucratic" are a legal framework that originated in Linux kernel and was borrowed by many projects, Barebox among them. So to answer your question: it has nothing to do with the size of the project, copyright and associated laws in various shapes or forms applies to everyone. Can it be done in a better, less verbose, more convenient form by smaller projects? Maybe or maybe not, but I don't think the question can be answered without performing proper legal analysis(done by law professionals, of course) which is very costly, time consuming, etc. > Solving inexisting problems doesn't make life easier but complicates it. > That's very much a truism, so you won't find much opposition to that. The devil, as usual, is in the details of how you define what constitutes a non-existing problem. This may sound rude and I apologize for not coming up with a way of better delivery, but I, personally, think that even if we were to assume that the whole SOB mechanism is most egregious and ridiculous legal cargo-cult, necessity to type "git commit -s" as opposed "git commit -s" when you are commiting changes is a non-existing problem. Andrey _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox