Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 21/36] misc: spelling

[Markus Armbruster]

Michael Tokarev <address@hidden> writes:

> 05.10.2015 08:09, Markus Armbruster пишет:
>> Michael Tokarev <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> 25.09.2015 19:08, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>> On 09/25/2015 08:03 AM, address@hidden wrote:
>>>>> From: Marc-André Lureau <address@hidden>
> []
>>>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
>>>
>>> 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.