Process Improvements in the Kernel Development 124
Kalki writes "In an e-mail to the Linux kernel mailing list, sent Saturday, Torvalds proposed that kernel developers begin certifying that the code that they contribute is entitled to be included in the Linux kernel as well as a technique for "signing off on patches" that would better track which developers had handled source code contributions. check this Infoworld story on it."
A good thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Linus retiring? (Score:4, Interesting)
-JT
tracking (Score:5, Interesting)
Linus Torvalds' problem is the fact that, as it is currently easy to find out who commited the patch, and often who provided it (which often appears in Bitkeeper's changelog), the whole submission process can be a blackbox - if I send a patch to alsa subsystem's maintainer, he'll probably apply it to alsa's CVS, maybe someone else will modify this patch, and when included in linux' main tree, only the merge information would appear.
Professional Approach coming to Linux ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Another interesting point here seems to be that with this management overhead and the admin work that issue such as this create, how much of time is Linus actually spending with them ? while he might be working with the technical side of things ?
Inspite of all the noise, there are just a handfull of people contributing major code into the Kernel ( would 300 be a fair guess ? ) How are all these admin overheads going to effect their performance ? Also is anyone / everyone expected to research the piles and piles of patenets / copyrights before they make such a declaration ?
Good Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering all the code [cnn.com] thats [slashdot.org] been leaked [pcworld.com] lately, this is a welcome insurance policy to keep Linux on track as free alternative OS.
His aim is different (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Avoid even the appearance.. (Score:4, Interesting)
From FSF:
We have just begun a project here at FSF to document and codify our process, so that it can be disseminated in the form of a policy manual and accompanying software, to all other Free Software projects who wish to solidify their legal assembly process. Distilling nearly two decades of organizational know-how into easy-to-understand software and documentation is no easy task, and we will rely greatly on your financial support to aid us in carrying out this momentous task.
Re:This quote says it all (Score:3, Interesting)
That's exactly it. Why is it that most of the comments here say "Good...Linux needed more professionalism/riggor/process/...."
I'm Mr Process myself. I ~love~ the SEI-CMM, will quote you hymn and verse from project plans, will dog you if you are sloppy and can't file a defect report on stuff you yourself wrote or if you mis-categorize it. Process is important because it makes people focus on doing the right thing when they don't want to.
OTOH...I've also been following Linux (the kernel) for years and how it is managed. The added test suite is fantastic, as is Linus' stand on using the best tools for the task. Linus and the other core Linux developers are already motivated to do the right thing so adding more formal processes in that don't help with development is not a good thing. It's sad. I have no doubt that this extra layer will not get in the way...so it's not too sad!
Re:His aim is different (Score:3, Interesting)
It's gotta be one of the most mirrored lists out there.
When? (Score:5, Interesting)
We should shout out of the top of our lungs that the propriarity way foster code stealing because no one can audit it.
Re:A Good Thing(tm) (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunately SCO and Darl McBride are doing a great job of cratering themselves. Short of turning up and denying the crap SCO is flinging at people, IBM and the like have had to do almost nothing.
Is it only me who gets the impression, lately, that everything SCO does digs their grave a little deeper?
Re:heheh (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, the SCO case also showed that even a well-funded company given a year (so far) and great incentives to find intellectual property problems in the linux source has been unable to do so.
Not that it's bad for the linux developers to be careful and think ahead.
--Bruce Fields