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=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED 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 59941C56201 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 06:54:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5AD2085B for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 06:54:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="lkq3LttM" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729868AbgKXGyZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2020 01:54:25 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57064 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728951AbgKXGyY (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2020 01:54:24 -0500 Received: from mail-il1-x144.google.com (mail-il1-x144.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::144]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D348BC0613CF for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 22:54:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-il1-x144.google.com with SMTP id v3so4114814ilo.5 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 22:54:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Jyg5lcJdKgnuPCVzERa4Rt0xWB2AfCQtzpyLk67O5hU=; b=lkq3LttM7CTkaBXuWnEHF9j9YCCIyQZMet9iO4QghTwL8ln4iFPDQRHEXJX9shLaBS UaiSxBBfpa/vYmTOV80ruwaBlfTNDDAdHVXEShbhwIIeMR5By32wVx+mpAbk2eiNm5tu ucm40VBmzvujaB55jq36tXz52pyOgKs6pHQP1WM23d92+f5yKTb6zHOg+yUmk/QDs4UB snaLHinXdMPVny2mt7+EElL9sMz5JYpGbDT7dYB6oOED9dwhzD/QyxlnqHJa/ZXRgV3o m+t+IuodS57GUUCoY/wgXSkZBb/DQtKSs8OYvAFJRRhHO3VhWI2nM5FUNEbN36/fNmEv 7OTw== 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=Jyg5lcJdKgnuPCVzERa4Rt0xWB2AfCQtzpyLk67O5hU=; b=RscOT5A6sDWGvOf6hKgZHDWv+TimhrIuWO2VXlabB7iB9ImiA7tI4yBux11rFd4Hbm 1eARMAqSCm7ZEg/TeaWtjnIsneUFNo2oq917SADFzIVITnnhrT0yidm6rPfEOpjd/Rnb LiAbVdStlxJFq2xSg8ClVCEGKLyGp+Gv0dItQylhd2jaB2EhtU2MTr052cYLnkl87Ixr UvZe4EvK3SHRBCMYWKl1W8+dvwWo1vJmNrLA+pMnyflByG9I13mj3YSeWuet4PMzRvDN gDf7qDkK2JSz/1q7oGqedQn9r1qMuDKtv3jUCSv4qPlG+JLPIQpx9mFCfc+u1uNfz+E1 sLSA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532nUoBhj5jcUQCKXRYaL5qQIxJWhaGaoSTNGjTbp9lW9pedARbk LT2q12nfa3Qlp83u4whiUQ4FDtA3NzcOz+RZUTw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyCdOM0L5zrUb51hSfU7JeNsMaQ+XL9nXC5bGZFGTctTczOxXx9rKpmdH7xqcMblstNAgHqrpBzGiZ2idhhVag= X-Received: by 2002:a92:aacc:: with SMTP id p73mr3053455ill.64.1606200864161; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 22:54:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201123172430.12854-1-yashsri421@gmail.com> <148208ef84344069a6c95d3f686a86ca1199be90.camel@perches.com> In-Reply-To: <148208ef84344069a6c95d3f686a86ca1199be90.camel@perches.com> From: Lukas Bulwahn Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:54:13 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: add fix and improve warning msg for Non-standard signature To: Joe Perches Cc: Aditya Srivastava , linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 6:33 PM Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 22:54 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote: > > Currently, checkpatch.pl warns for BAD_SIGN_OFF on non-standard signature > > styles. > > I think this proposed change is unnecessary. > > > This warning occurs because of incorrect use of signature tags, > > e.g. an evaluation on v4.13..v5.8 showed the use of following incorrect > > signature tags, which may seem correct, but are not standard: > > Standards are useful, but standards are not constraints. > Agree, but we do try to create statistics and try to derive quality statements from those tags (yes, empirical software engineering black magic...). Hence, I am in favor of suggesting to rewrite those tags that really do not add anything at all. E.g., Suggestions-by: vs. Suggested-by, or Coauthored-by vs. Co-developed-by. Anyone can ignore checkpatch; so it is not a constraint unless enforced by subsystem maintainers. > > 1) Requested-by (count: 48) => Suggested-by > > Rationale: In an open-source project, there are no 'requests', just > > 'suggestions' to convince a maintainer to accept your patch > > There's nothing really wrong with some non-standard signatures. > And I think leaving humor like brown-paper-bag-by: is useful. > I think we do not want to take the humor and fun away from patches. So let us not suggest deleting the humorous and celebrating ones. > Just telling people that they are using a non-standard signature > I think is enough. > Maybe a patch reduced to the very obvious synonyms helps newcomers or people with lousy memory to be reminded that it is called "Co-developed-by:" not "Co-authored-by". Lukas