Re: [PATCH v4] docs: clarify rules wrt tagging other people

[Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>]

Sorry, fell behind on things again...

Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:

>> - It would be awfully nice if we could provide this advice in exactly
>>   one place in the document.  This is one of our most important docs,
>>   and it is far too long to expect new contributors to read through and
>>   absorb.  Avoiding making it longer and more repetitive would be
>>   better, if we can.
>
> Well, in 5.Posting.rst that was possible. In submitting-patches.rst that
> conflicted with existing text in three areas, so some changes were
> needed; in one case the new text even got a little shorter, but overall
> those changes did not add a single new line.
>
> But sure, the new paragraph added a few lines. And it is identical in
> both documents. But that is a more complex and existing situation this
> patch can't solve. But of course I could avoid adding the new paragraph
> to submitting-patches.rst and change the "(see 'Tagging people requires
> permission' below for details)" added there already into "(see 'Tagging
> people requires permission' in Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst for
> details)". Given that people requested a even more detailed paragraph
> (see the other reply I just sent to Laurent) that might be wise; OTOH
> submitting-patches.rst right now AFAICS tries to be stand-alone, so it
> feels wrong at the same time.
>
> IOW: both is fine for me. Could you let me please know what you prefer?

Adding more cross references certainly won't help, I guess we'll leave
it as-is for now.

>> - 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.

jon