From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 198A91DE3A4; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 22:39:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741819168; cv=none; b=u8rs0+BZ+X0Exnlk6Kuj6nF8ExQNv5Q1i22ZBnM9VsfRekZ8w5tykaLaea6iepIPpP1sxJQ1AoSBiQ6lv5mn+3jmObtvGwyanpKFi5m9/jeSSi11thd94bsnZsNw8cWmwyiITutwDhf6B/K4fnQ6l7W3rofLzFHpJsnXgQAmW0A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741819168; c=relaxed/simple; bh=d04iKHxYq/E+Li+Qvs0unn3jinJpPrAAf2uTXuzu75s=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=iLhnuQY3mvFHL+6QIQ64o3Bal2TxTOgu2UDS4HWFXVQdY3rYjONHevwlu3h9Yu2hH9xp75QYf1KLnT3sMTn+VyrQAkEl7CbqrZHawXAWrN0hWaj9jQm0Jbj0MnQgXEhRIWIqjKjW1in+eXzfrJbY+K15Xg11NhePhuIq7D78Cig= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=CtQyC/Oy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="CtQyC/Oy" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 274A541063 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1741819166; bh=lEWiaTjCAZsdNeiF0YFPEvCb61ta87WaMFTY3JjLgJc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=CtQyC/OyOMOJmuBK8/FXYPVreNI76fmqAJ8dx2kiqh3CVaBryfdR6fthOWFwPqmZO vFxKQv++IoHRA0OpeNr9RgYGdG69nJXVa3xPunVXD1GQG9HCFgZeeWMIvjn+pbv1hj bL8sAv4JPJFQRbL4iPhBAmfkPAMYKZE6SheXIia7egAzGTSe8JyWLpZYZI0gmIQqii Nvge7Cd1iCLRjeYV5OVsE9C03u9LL9reanbzLcgVyazqcmGIKGLM7PbUr0ZwfBLkig t5CeurSebBCmV/J3322ipZTt1sYVIVDjipBy+D3JJ0VGseUe7k8DmDaId3FoeKKYrG hWdKlpnUd4mJg== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:2da9::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 274A541063; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 22:39:26 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Thorsten Leemhuis Cc: workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Laurent Pinchart , Simona Vetter , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Shuah Khan Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] docs: clarify rules wrt tagging other people In-Reply-To: <431b3825-8ed6-4da2-af9d-4f95e9d08606@leemhuis.info> References: <588cf2763baa8fea1f4825f4eaa7023fe88bb6c1.1738852082.git.linux@leemhuis.info> <87y0ydzn1q.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <8b87b297-b68b-4276-95ae-e04650c3360f@leemhuis.info> <875xl7nfxg.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <431b3825-8ed6-4da2-af9d-4f95e9d08606@leemhuis.info> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:39:25 -0600 Message-ID: <87jz8tlvqa.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Thorsten Leemhuis writes: > On 18.02.25 21:42, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> Sorry, fell behind on things again... > > No worries at all. And fun fact: I put this aside myself for some time > as I was unsure about the way forward... > >> Thorsten Leemhuis writes: >> [...] >> Adding more cross references certainly won't help, I guess we'll leave >> it as-is for now. > > +1 > >>>> - I wonder if it would make sense to say that, if an implicit-permission >>>> tag has been added, the person named in it should get at least one >>>> copy of the change before it is merged? >>> >>> Hah, that is where I'd start to say "that seems like a bit much". And it >>> does not help, as the cat is out of the bag once that copy is out, as >>> the name and the email address someone might prefer to keep private >>> would have made it to mailing list archives then already. >> >> The cat is out of the bag but not in the repository; the thought was >> that it's polite to give the person involved a heads-up that their name >> is being taken in vain. Certainly I've seen enough "what, no, I don't >> want that tag there" reactions over the years to think it would >> occasionally head off a use that the owner of the name doesn't want. > > Hmmm, have a point there. How about a "s/contributed/routinely > contributes/" in this sentence: > > """ > For those three implicit permission is sufficient if the person > contributed to the Linux kernel using that name and email address > according to the lore archives or the commit history > """ Sorry for being slow ... but also, I guess, for not communicating my point very well. My concern wasn't about somebody not wanting to appear in the repository at all; it was more with somebody not wanting their tag in a specific patch where they had not offered it. It seems I'm the only one who is worried about this, though. It seems like we should go ahead and get this change in before the merge window hits. Thanks, jon