From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CD47D04D for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:31:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726182AbfCYQbQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:31:16 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:43140 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725788AbfCYQbQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:31:16 -0400 Received: from lwn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2934B9B1; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:31:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:31:14 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Andy Whitcroft , Joe Perches , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Tobin C . Harding" , Thomas Gleixner , Jani Nikula , Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz , Jonathan Cameron , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Niklas Cassel Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements for Co-developed-by Message-ID: <20190325103114.2df3b91d@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <20190322211137.18241-2-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> References: <20190322211137.18241-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <20190322211137.18241-2-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> Organization: LWN.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 14:11:36 -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. I've applied this. Joe, do you want to handle the checkpatch.pl patch, or would you prefer I take that one too? Thanks, jon