| Message ID | 1544792494-15485-1-git-send-email-jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | checkpatch: add Co-Developed-by to signature tags | expand |
On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 14:01 +0100, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote: > As per Documentation/process/submitting-patches, Co-developed-by is a > valid signature. > > This commit removes the warning. Your commit message doesn't match your subject. A couple variants have been documented and only one should actually be used. $ git grep -i co-developed-by Documentation/process/ Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst: - Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:12) When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-Developed-by: Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:A Co-Developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer $ git log --grep="co-developed-by:" -i | \ grep -ohiP "co-developed-by:" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn 80 Co-developed-by: 40 Co-Developed-by: So which should it be? btw: I prefer neither as I think Signed-off-by: is sufficient. > Signed-off-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org> [] > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl [] > @@ -468,6 +468,7 @@ our $logFunctions = qr{(?x: > > our $signature_tags = qr{(?xi: > Signed-off-by:| > + Co-Developed-by:| > Acked-by:| > Tested-by:| > Reviewed-by:|
On 12/14/18 16:52, Joe Perches wrote: > > A couple variants have been documented and only > one should actually be used. > > $ git grep -i co-developed-by Documentation/process/ > Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst: - Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:12) When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-Developed-by: > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:A Co-Developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > > $ git log --grep="co-developed-by:" -i | \ > grep -ohiP "co-developed-by:" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn > 80 Co-developed-by: > 40 Co-Developed-by: > > So which should it be? > > btw: I prefer neither as I think Signed-off-by: is sufficient IMO neither is only an option if you comfortable with the script generating false warnings. If you wont apply the patch anyway I wont pursue it further. Otherwise please let me know I will also update the documentation to match the commit. TIA > . > >> Signed-off-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org> > [] >> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > [] >> @@ -468,6 +468,7 @@ our $logFunctions = qr{(?x: >> >> our $signature_tags = qr{(?xi: >> Signed-off-by:| >> + Co-Developed-by:| >> Acked-by:| >> Tested-by:| >> Reviewed-by:| >
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 07:52:15AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 14:01 +0100, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote: > > As per Documentation/process/submitting-patches, Co-developed-by is a > > valid signature. > > > > This commit removes the warning. > > Your commit message doesn't match your subject. > > A couple variants have been documented and only > one should actually be used. > > $ git grep -i co-developed-by Documentation/process/ > Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst: - Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:12) When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-Developed-by: > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:A Co-Developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > > $ git log --grep="co-developed-by:" -i | \ > grep -ohiP "co-developed-by:" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn > 80 Co-developed-by: > 40 Co-Developed-by: > > So which should it be? "Co-developed-by:" please. Yeah, I wrote the original one wrong here, sorry. > btw: I prefer neither as I think Signed-off-by: is sufficient. Nope, sorry, it is not, we need something like this which is why it was added. thanks, greg k-h
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 07:52:15AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 14:01 +0100, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote: > > As per Documentation/process/submitting-patches, Co-developed-by is a > > valid signature. > > > > This commit removes the warning. > > Your commit message doesn't match your subject. > > A couple variants have been documented and only > one should actually be used. > > $ git grep -i co-developed-by Documentation/process/ > Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst: - Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:12) When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-Developed-by: > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:A Co-Developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > > $ git log --grep="co-developed-by:" -i | \ > grep -ohiP "co-developed-by:" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn > 80 Co-developed-by: > 40 Co-Developed-by: > > So which should it be? > > btw: I prefer neither as I think Signed-off-by: is sufficient. OK, but does multiple Signed-off-by: in the commits imply that the patch was created by all those developers ? I don't think so, perhaps this was the reason to introduce Co-developed-by: tag. -- Himanshu Jha Undergraduate Student Department of Electronics & Communication Guru Tegh Bahadur Institute of Technology
On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 21:46 +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 07:52:15AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 14:01 +0100, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote: > > > As per Documentation/process/submitting-patches, Co-developed-by is a > > > valid signature. > > > > > > This commit removes the warning. > > > > Your commit message doesn't match your subject. > > > > A couple variants have been documented and only > > one should actually be used. > > > > $ git grep -i co-developed-by Documentation/process/ > > Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst: - Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:12) When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-Developed-by: > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:A Co-Developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > > > > $ git log --grep="co-developed-by:" -i | \ > > grep -ohiP "co-developed-by:" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn > > 80 Co-developed-by: > > 40 Co-Developed-by: > > > > So which should it be? > > > > btw: I prefer neither as I think Signed-off-by: is sufficient. > > OK, but does multiple Signed-off-by: in the commits imply that > the patch was created by all those developers ? > > I don't think so, perhaps this was the reason to introduce > Co-developed-by: tag. Perhaps, but a sign-off is also a recognition that the patch was passed-through by individuals Effectively, there's no real difference. "Co-developed-by:" is just another word for "Authored-by:" where multiple "Authorship" is the thing being notated. Is it really important to specify things like 75% / 25% authorship crediting? I don't really care about attribution so the concept is not particularly valuable to me.
On 12/14/18 17:13, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 07:52:15AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: >> On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 14:01 +0100, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote: >>> As per Documentation/process/submitting-patches, Co-developed-by is a >>> valid signature. >>> >>> This commit removes the warning. >> Your commit message doesn't match your subject. >> >> A couple variants have been documented and only >> one should actually be used. >> >> $ git grep -i co-developed-by Documentation/process/ >> Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst: - Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer >> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:12) When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-Developed-by: >> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:A Co-Developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer >> >> $ git log --grep="co-developed-by:" -i | \ >> grep -ohiP "co-developed-by:" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn >> 80 Co-developed-by: >> 40 Co-Developed-by: >> >> So which should it be? > "Co-developed-by:" please. > > Yeah, I wrote the original one wrong here, sorry. > >> btw: I prefer neither as I think Signed-off-by: is sufficient. > Nope, sorry, it is not, we need something like this which is why it was > added. > > thanks, > > greg k-h > . > I'll update both
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 08:27:33AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 21:46 +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 07:52:15AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 14:01 +0100, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote: > > > > As per Documentation/process/submitting-patches, Co-developed-by is a > > > > valid signature. > > > > > > > > This commit removes the warning. > > > > > > Your commit message doesn't match your subject. > > > > > > A couple variants have been documented and only > > > one should actually be used. > > > > > > $ git grep -i co-developed-by Documentation/process/ > > > Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst: - Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:12) When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-Developed-by: > > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:A Co-Developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > > > > > > $ git log --grep="co-developed-by:" -i | \ > > > grep -ohiP "co-developed-by:" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn > > > 80 Co-developed-by: > > > 40 Co-Developed-by: > > > > > > So which should it be? > > > > > > btw: I prefer neither as I think Signed-off-by: is sufficient. > > > > OK, but does multiple Signed-off-by: in the commits imply that > > the patch was created by all those developers ? > > > > I don't think so, perhaps this was the reason to introduce > > Co-developed-by: tag. > > Perhaps, but a sign-off is also a recognition that the > patch was passed-through by individuals Yes, Agreed! > Effectively, there's no real difference. > > "Co-developed-by:" is just another word for "Authored-by:" > where multiple "Authorship" is the thing being notated. > > Is it really important to specify things like 75% / 25% > authorship crediting? IDK how that ratio came up into this discussion ? Anyway, I saw on IIO list that a bunch of students were involved in driver cleaning with the help of developers from Analog Devices Inc who intially wrote some code snippets. And that authorship crediting for Analog Devices folks would be helpful distinguishing that it was not just passed-through and rather they spent their time on it. > I don't really care about attribution so the concept is > not particularly valuable to me. Well, it might not be valuable to you but it is for others and I saw one such example in the past during my project. At least I do care about those developers who spent a considerable time on IIO list guiding students aside from their mainline work. FYI, IIO has already +1'd for "Co-developed-by:" -- Himanshu Jha Undergraduate Student Department of Electronics & Communication Guru Tegh Bahadur Institute of Technology
On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 22:58 +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 08:27:33AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > Is it really important to specify things like 75% / 25% > > authorship crediting? > > IDK how that ratio came up into this discussion ? How does one tell when a co-developed-by: person should be notated or blamed for a defective commit? git blame shows only 1 author.
On 12/14/18 18:39, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 22:58 +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 08:27:33AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: >>> Is it really important to specify things like 75% / 25% >>> authorship crediting? >> IDK how that ratio came up into this discussion ? > How does one tell when a co-developed-by: person > should be notated or blamed for a defective commit? > > git blame shows only 1 author. > > > > co-developed is simply about crediting a piece of work, something which is intrinsically connected to the philosophy of open source. I could name a number of papers but one that comes to my mind is a work from Pekka Himanen, The Hacker Ethic...[1993]. anyway, so while sign-of is of a practical nature, co-developed is more of a social one. at least that is my understanding.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 09:39:10AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 22:58 +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 08:27:33AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > Is it really important to specify things like 75% / 25% > > > authorship crediting? > > > > IDK how that ratio came up into this discussion ? > > How does one tell when a co-developed-by: person > should be notated or blamed for a defective commit? > > git blame shows only 1 author. I would Cc all those who were involved in the defective commit log. -- Himanshu Jha Undergraduate Student Department of Electronics & Communication Guru Tegh Bahadur Institute of Technology
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl index 93e84c9..cab515f 100755 --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl @@ -468,6 +468,7 @@ our $logFunctions = qr{(?x: our $signature_tags = qr{(?xi: Signed-off-by:| + Co-Developed-by:| Acked-by:| Tested-by:| Reviewed-by:|
As per Documentation/process/submitting-patches, Co-developed-by is a valid signature. This commit removes the warning. Signed-off-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org> --- scripts/checkpatch.pl | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) -- 2.7.4