Re: [PATCH v4] docs: clarify rules wrt tagging other people

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 18.02.25 21:42, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Sorry, fell behind on things again...

No worries at all. And fun fact: I put this aside myself for some time
as I was unsure about the way forward...

> Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> [...]
> Adding more cross references certainly won't help, I guess we'll leave
> it as-is for now.

+1

>>> - I wonder if it would make sense to say that, if an implicit-permission
>>>   tag has been added, the person named in it should get at least one
>>>   copy of the change before it is merged?
>>
>> Hah, that is where I'd start to say "that seems like a bit much". And it
>> does not help, as the cat is out of the bag once that copy is out, as
>> the name and the email address someone might prefer to keep private
>> would have made it to mailing list archives then already.
> 
> The cat is out of the bag but not in the repository; the thought was
> that it's polite to give the person involved a heads-up that their name
> is being taken in vain.  Certainly I've seen enough "what, no, I don't
> want that tag there" reactions over the years to think it would
> occasionally head off a use that the owner of the name doesn't want.

Hmmm, have a point there. How about a "s/contributed/routinely
contributes/" in this sentence:

"""
For those three implicit permission is sufficient if the person
contributed to the Linux kernel using that name and email address
according to the lore archives or the commit history
"""

This has downsides as well (some of which were discussed in replies to
earlier versions of this patch, iirc), but might be a better middle
ground that is really short. Ohh, and I'm not attached to the word
"routinely", but for me it seemed like a better fit that "regularly".
But maybe I'm wrong – or maybe there is even a better word.

Ciao, Thorsten