Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: whitelist Originally-by: signature

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Eugeniu,

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 6:24 PM Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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