Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Mar 2023 07:41:51 -0600 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] docs/sp_SP: Add process deprecated translation | From | Carlos Bilbao <> |
| |
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
| |