05.10.2015 08:09, Markus Armbruster пишет: > Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> writes: > >> 25.09.2015 19:08, Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 09/25/2015 08:03 AM, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote: >>>> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> [] >>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> >> >> 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. > 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. Thanks, /mjt
