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=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, 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 69AD7C64E7A for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 18:40:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05900208C3 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 18:40:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2392314AbgLASkt (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2020 13:40:49 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.15]:32962 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389368AbgLASks (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2020 13:40:48 -0500 Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by smtpgrave03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD7B18036FFE for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 18:40:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EFB4182CED34; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 18:39:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-HE-Tag: wall32_490fb3e273ac X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3588 Received: from XPS-9350.home (unknown [47.151.128.180]) (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 18:39:26 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] checkpatch: add fix and improve warning msg for Non-standard signature From: Joe Perches To: Lukas Bulwahn Cc: Aditya Srivastava , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 10:39:24 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20201201112931.11192-1-yashsri421@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 19:21 +0100, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 6:24 PM Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 16:59 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote: > > > Currently, checkpatch.pl warns for BAD_SIGN_OFF on non-standard signature > > > styles. > > > > > > 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: > > > > I'm not a fan of this patch. > > > > There is already a "non-standard" signature warning for > > all of these cases since 2012, predating the range of this > > retrospective evaluation by over 5 years and yet these > > existing commits have been accepted. > > > > The value in actual standardization and effectively > > requiring specific signature style tags is quite low. > > > > Anyone that signed a thing a particular way should be free > > to sign the thing as they choose. > > > > Most of these warnings would also still be in the tree in > > the future in new patches as running checkpatch without > > it emitting a message of any type isn't a requirement nor > > should checkpatch use actually be required workflow. > > > > Can we scale this fixing feature down to the very obvious synonyms > that simply do not add anything but confusion? > > Such as for those four here: > > Co-authored-by (count: 43) => Co-developed-by I've never been a big fan of "Co-developed-by" as a signature tag, but a "this should be that" here could be ok. > Reviewed-off-by (count: 5) => Reviewed-by I don't see value. If no one notices a BAD_SIGN_OFF for the Reviewed-off-by:, I doubt this would add anything. > Proposed-by (count: 5) => Suggested-by > Suggestions-by (count: 3) => Suggested-by Suggestions-by is not suggested-by as these suggestions could have been in response to an initial patch proposal and the author could have incorporated those suggestions. > Then, we can probably also drop the rationale because it is pretty clear. > > Of course, the impact might be really zero, given that it is unclear > if those authors did actually ever run checkpatch in the first place. > > Joe, if you see no value in even such a minimal fix feature, let us > drop that idea and move on. There are enough other things to work on. Maybe only add the Co-authored-by: -> Co-developed-by: check. But IMO: none of this is particularly useful.