linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 3/4] Documentation: move dma-buf documentation to rst

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 11 Aug 2016 18:01:25 +0530
From:	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
To:	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
	DRI mailing list <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	Linaro MM SIG Mailman List <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/4] Documentation: move dma-buf documentation to rst

Hello Jani,

On 11 August 2016 at 17:17, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org> wrote:
>> diff --git a/Documentation/dma-buf/guide.rst b/Documentation/dma-buf/guide.rst
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..fd3534fdccb3
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/dma-buf/guide.rst
>> @@ -0,0 +1,503 @@
>> +
>> +.. _dma-buf-guide:
>> +
>> +============================
>> +DMA Buffer Sharing API Guide
>> +============================
>> +
>> +Sumit Semwal - sumit.semwal@...aro.org, sumits@...nel.org
>
> Please use the format
>
> :author: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
>
Thanks very much for reviewing!
> ---
>
> While on this subject, please excuse me for hijacking the thread a bit.
>
> Personally, I believe it would be better to leave out authorship notes
> from documentation and source files in collaborative projects. Of
> course, it is only fair that people who deserve credit get the
> credit. Listing the authors in the file is often the natural thing to
> do, and superficially seems fair.
>
> However, when do you add more names to the list? When has someone
> contributed enough to warrant that? Is it fair that the original authors
> keep getting the credit for the contributions of others? After a while,
> perhaps there is next to nothing left of the original contributions, but
> the bar is really high for removing anyone from the authors. Listing the
> authors gives the impression this is *their* file, while everyone should
> feel welcome to contribute, and everyone who contributes should feel
> ownership.
>
> IMHO we would be better off using just the git history for the credits.
>
:) - I totally agree with your stand; this patch was an (almost)
direct conversion from the earlier format, hence this patch.

But yes, I will remove it in the next iteration.
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
BR,
Sumit.

> PS. I am no saint here, I've got a couple of authors lines myself. I
> promise not to add more. I certainly won't chastise anyone for adding
> theirs.
>
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center



-- 
Thanks and regards,

Sumit Semwal
Linaro Mobile Group - Kernel Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs