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

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]

Message-ID: <20181214161344.GA10654@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:13:44 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org>,
        apw@...onical.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, niklas.cassel@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add Co-Developed-by to signature tags

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