Messages in this thread | | | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Date | Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:25:29 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: whitelist Originally-by: signature |
| |
Hi Eugeniu,
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 6:24 PM Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@de.adit-jv.com> 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 <erosca@de.adit-jv.com> 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
| |