Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add Co-Developed-by to signature tags

[Joe Perches]

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.