Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5] checkpatch: add fix and improve warning msg for Non-standard signature | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Tue, 01 Dec 2020 10:39:24 -0800 |
| |
On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 19:21 +0100, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 6:24 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> 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.
| |