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]

Date:   Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:18:27 +0100
From:   Jorge Ramirez <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     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 12/14/18 17:13, Greg KH 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?
> "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
> .
>
I'll update both