| 1 |
On Friday 08 October 2004 18:28, Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> No, the conclusion was that the patches can not be in the tree. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> That is why I ripped the 2.6 kernel patches out of the cvs tree, and |
| 6 |
> moved them to an external bitkeeper tree. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If that is true, it is all the more reason to change this. I don't know about |
| 9 |
the patches. I feel that it is our best interest if developer made patches |
| 10 |
are assigned to gentoo, but we could also do it by simple copyright |
| 11 |
assignment (e.g. putting a header on the patch which says Copyright Gentoo |
| 12 |
Foundation 200x) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Paul |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 18 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 19 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 20 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives