Re: [PATCH 13/16] docs/zh_TW: process: localize terminology in submitting-patches.rst

[Weijie Yuan <wy@wyuan.org>]

Ah, somehow I forgot to reply this email... Sorry


On Sat, Jul 25, 2026 at 08:36:26AM +0800, 葉宸佑 wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 07:06:59PM +0800, Weijie Yuan wrote:
> > For the translation of DCO, I have the same concern with Akira:
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/c8c36d99-9c0a-4767-8a4e-a5ad28093530@gmail.com/
> > Could it be better if adding a sentence like:
> >     "The translation is for reference only and has no legal
> >     effect. Please refer to the original text."
> 
> This is a fair concern, and I think you and Akira are right. The DCO is
> a legal statement that contributors certify with their Signed-off-by,
> so a reader who only reads the translation should be told explicitly
> that the English text is the authoritative one.
> 
> The existing disclaimer-zh_TW.rst included at the top of each file only
> warns that a translation may be out of date; it says nothing about
> legal effect. So a dedicated note next to the DCO section would add
> something the current disclaimer does not cover.
> 
> Two thoughts on how to do it:
> 
>   - This affects every locale that translates submitting-patches.rst,
>     not just zh_TW, so it would be better to have the same wording
>     everywhere rather than each locale inventing its own. If the docs
>     maintainers prefer, the note could even live in the English
>     original as guidance for translators.
>   - Since it is a policy question rather than a terminology fix, I
>     would rather not slip it into this series. I am happy to send it
>     as a separate patch once we agree on the wording, or to follow
>     whatever the zh_CN side decides so the two stay aligned.
> 
> The GNU page you linked is a good model; their point that only the
> original is legally valid, with translations provided to aid
> understanding, is exactly the framing we need. Let me know if you
> would like me to draft the wording.

Agreed. A separate patch (series) is obviously a proper solution. (So
yeah the same, I was just "thinking aloud", to prevent my thoughts from
being submerged in the sea of patches)

After this patch series is completed, let's deal with these issues.

> > As far as I know, it seems that there would be a final decision in LPC
> > 2026 soon (Oct.5-7), so let's mark this into our TODO notebook for later
> > potential changes.
> 
> Noted, I will keep the Assisted-by: section on the TODO list and
> revisit it after LPC. And you are right that translating
> coding-assistants.rst first would make more sense than churning the
> reference to it.

Yes and nice.

Thanks.