[LinuxBIOS] "Trivial" patches
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Sat Nov 24 02:49:36 CET 2007
On 21.11.2007 06:19, Peter Stuge wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:57:51PM +0100, Uwe Hermann wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:40:26PM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>>> OK, can we decide on what should be (not) allowed, preferably as
>>> regexp for the diff?
>> Please don't over-engineer this.
> I am with Uwe. Let's use common sense and respect our peers.
We already check for Acked-by and Signed-off-by in the commit hooks.
Nobody has complained about it. Nobody has stamped out that check as an
example of disrespect.
I produce two classes of patches:
* Patches where I'm not sure they will work or where I feel others would
want to have a say in a design decision as well. These patches are
either without a signoff or carry the explicit label [RFC] or some other
strong wording against committing.
* Patches which are IMO obviously correct. They can involve pretty large
code changes or rewriting fragile (and long-time unchanged) code
everybody uses. Obviously correct patches are trivial.
I have no problem committing a rewrite of the CAR setup assembly code.
It is obviously correct for me even without having ever looked at any of
the relevant data sheets or having tested it on real hardware.
Do you really want me to commit that? The patch is ready.
More information about the coreboot