From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Tobin C . Harding" <me@tobin.cc>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements for Co-developed-by
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:13:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190322171344.GC12666@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0f4538aa6a91c071f6e590c2d3f60a474b14fab5.camel@perches.com>
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:03:07AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 08:57 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > The documentation for Co-developed-by is a bit light on details, e.g. it
> > doesn't explicitly state that:
> >
> > - Multiple Co-developed-by tags are perfectly acceptable
> > - Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by must be paired together
> > - SOB ordering should still follow standard sign-off procedure
> >
> > Lack of explicit direction has resulted in developers taking a variety
> > of approaches, often lacking any intent whatsoever, e.g. scattering SOBs
> > willy-nilly, collecting them all at the end or the beginning, etc...
> > Tweak the wording to make it clear that multiple co-authors are allowed,
> > and document the expectation that standard sign-off procedures are to
> > be followed.
> >
> > The use of "original author" has also led to confusion as many patches
> > don't have just one "original" author, e.g. when multiple developers
> > are involved from the genesis of the patch. Remove all usage of
> > "original" and instead call out that Co-developed-by is simply a way to
> > provide attribution in addition to the From tag, i.e. neither tag is
> > intended to imply anything with regard to who did what.
> >
> > Provide examples to (hopefully) eliminate any ambiguity.
>
> Please add the checkpatch bit to this at the same time.
Doh, spaced on that. I'll wait for additional feedback before sending v5.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-22 17:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-22 15:57 [PATCH v4] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements for Co-developed-by Sean Christopherson
2019-03-22 17:03 ` Joe Perches
2019-03-22 17:13 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2019-03-22 17:56 ` Niklas Cassel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190322171344.GC12666@linux.intel.com \
--to=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=me@tobin.cc \
--cc=niklas.cassel@linaro.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).