From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93EFDC432C3 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:25:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762A4204FD for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:25:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726696AbfK0JZm (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Nov 2019 04:25:42 -0500 Received: from mail-oi1-f193.google.com ([209.85.167.193]:33757 "EHLO mail-oi1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726149AbfK0JZl (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Nov 2019 04:25:41 -0500 Received: by mail-oi1-f193.google.com with SMTP id x21so12381877oic.0 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 01:25:41 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e3SI+PalkAVg/EhpKyNHwp1BQJsL2GZX4PjkGsyUXnU=; b=OniQZNKCDhOfzvscsApmcl6SEEZHalhTZ1PAEz/gkuQzGTVXlUEt7s8uUOdYsdceDm v2EQzBEdkc7vJY7DjEkMzsakhHlndEp2prNd1Kt+PUuRKF43weLkKE7V0z4KpP7CX9ZF 4R3uBPus1HwVeN5oB7qd1+MUz8vsXFYik4s7/nse3d+xXlNemWNSI6BhVjcq+5VoZsNh SB73r82UNNuVAwb3CHM0b7Y5dKrA6lKFrj1Kh34ZNMY41/zSEtQsdN6uAXNLZlBM60vC JH8+q41n2Z0WxAe1IGnqxGZm8APqOevKZKgq5NQ+X89WGJiPN1NuI1l5PwUilD+agbHx KJMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUzCvXKlESh5k+DphW35MHENOLHN6efePXbhBMpb0I9AC/wN9jO pm+U3DIlqnGBmJL+910GjKGg7/kCibAm1psk3Fs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwlfP556yI7xTcMB0OAC7IxK3vUcovtm5hRT1uToSaoYNd1PAbNuHxWBQNo01mxjK1zerzjxZim95QPOkPhtSc= X-Received: by 2002:aca:3a86:: with SMTP id h128mr3049038oia.131.1574846740792; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 01:25:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191115150202.15208-1-erosca@de.adit-jv.com> <05ba4e29fb78885cf9abf7bfc87e0a7bcda099fe.camel@perches.com> <20191115154627.GA2187@lxhi-065.adit-jv.com> <20191115092943.7c79f81e@lwn.net> <20191115172141.GA3085@lxhi-065.adit-jv.com> In-Reply-To: <20191115172141.GA3085@lxhi-065.adit-jv.com> From: Geert Uytterhoeven Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:25:29 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: whitelist Originally-by: signature To: Eugeniu Rosca Cc: Jonathan Corbet , Joe Perches , Andy Whitcroft , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Eugeniu Rosca , Thomas Gleixner Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Eugeniu, On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 6:24 PM Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 09:29:43AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:46:27 +0100 > > Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 07:09:17AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2019-11-15 at 16:02 +0100, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > > > > > Oftentimes [1], the contributor would like to honor or give credits [2] > > > > > to somebody's original ideas in the submission/reviewing process. While > > > > > "Co-developed-by:" and "Suggested-by:" (currently whitelisted) could be > > > > > employed for this purpose, they are not ideal. > > > > > > > > You need to get the use of this accepted into Documentation/process > > > > before adding it to checkpatch > > > > > > If the change [*] makes sense to you, I can submit an update to > > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > > > > So there appear to be 89 patches with Originally-by in the entire Git > > history, which isn't a a lot; there are 3x as many Co-developed-by tags, > > which still isn't a huge number. I do wonder if it's worth recognizing > > yet another tag with a subtly different shade of meaning here? My own > > opinion doesn't matter a lot, but I'd like to have a sense that there is > > wider acceptance of this tag before adding it to the docs. > > I will give a real-life example. Say, I have some patches in my > local tree and they've been developed by somebody who is no longer > interested/paid to upstream those. > > I first submit those patches with the original authorship, plus my SoB. > Then, the reviewers post their findings. I put my time into fixing those > and re-testing the patch or the entire series. The final patch/series > may look totally different compared to the original one. > > Which way would you suggest to give credits to the original author? > I personally think that "Co-developed-by:" conveys the idea/feeling of > "teaming up" with somebody, which doesn't happen in my example. What I typically do is this: 1. If the changes due to review are minor, I just add my SoB below the original SoB, 2. If the changes are not insignificant, I also add a line "[geert: Did foo]" in between the original SoB and mine, 3. If the patch needed a complete rewrite, I assume ownership, and add "Based on/inspired by ..." to the patch description to give credit. Hope this helps (and is acceptable for other people ;-) Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds