Re: [PATCH] docs/sp_SP: Add process deprecated translation

[Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@amd.com>]

On 3/6/23 17:03, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 09:34:29 -0600, Carlos Bilbao wrote:
>> On 3/6/23 09:30, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>>> On 2023/03/07 0:20, Carlos Bilbao wrote:
>>>> Hello Akira,
>>>>
>>>> On 3/6/23 09:13, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>>>>> Hi Carlos,
>>>>>
>>>>> Minor nits in the Subject and Sob area.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 07:44:20 -0600, Carlos Bilbao wrote:
>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] docs/sp_SP: Add process deprecated translation
>>>>>
>>>>> This summary looks ambiguous to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>
>>>>>       docs/sp_SP: Add translation of process/deprecated
>>>>
>>>> This summary follows the same format followed in the past. Some examples:
>>>>
>>>> docs/sp_SP: Add process coding-style translation
>>>> docs/sp_SP: Add process magic-number translation
>>>> docs/sp_SP: Add process programming-language translation
>>>> docs/sp_SP: Add process email-clients translation
>>>
>>> Let me explain why "Add process deprecated translation" looks
>>> ambiguous.
>>>
>>> "deprecated translation" can be interpreted as "some translation
>>> which is deprecated".
>>> Of course you don't need to agree.
>>
>> I see what you mean. I'm sending v2 patch renamed to avoid confusion.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ??
>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate Documentation/process/deprecated.rst into Spanish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Co-developed-by: Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@amd.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sergio Gonzalez <sergio.collado@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@amd.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> To me, Co-developed-by: from the author of the patch looks
>>>>> strange, because it is obvious the author did some development on
>>>>> the patch.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, we both worked on this patch so Co-developed-by: is the appropriate
>>>> tagging. That being said, Sergio translated more than I did, so I put
>>>> him as sole Translator in the document itself.
>>>
>>> Hmm, anyway I don't think you are following the rule of Co-developed-by:
>>> explained in submitting-patches.rst.
>>>
>>> Again, you don't need to agree... ;-)
>>
>> But, why doesn't it follow the rule?
>>
>> The rule is "A Co-Developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people work on a single patch."
>>
>> IMHO this is the case here, but before I send v2 I'll wait to read you again in case we agree at that point.
> 
> If you put "From: Sergio" as the first line in the Changelog, like
> this submission [1], then the Sob chain would make sense.
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20230227222957.24501-2-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com/
> 
> Didn't you forgot to put it there?

Sending v2 :)

> 
> Just guessing...
> 
>          Thanks, Akira
> 
>>
>>>
>>>           Thanks, Akira
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Which is your intent:
>>>>>
>>>>>       Author: Carlos
>>>>>       Co-developer: Sergio
>>>>>
>>>>> , or
>>>>>
>>>>>       Author: Sergio
>>>>>       Co-developer: Carlos
>>>>>
>>>>> ???
>>>>>
>>>>>            Thanks, Akira
>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     .../translations/sp_SP/process/deprecated.rst | 381 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>     .../translations/sp_SP/process/index.rst      |   1 +
>>>>>>     2 files changed, 382 insertions(+)
>>>>>>     create mode 100644 Documentation/translations/sp_SP/process/deprecated.rst
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Carlos
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Carlos

Thanks,
Carlos