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  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, 22 Mar 2019 10:13:44 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements for
 Co-developed-by

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:03:07AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 08:57 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > The documentation for Co-developed-by is a bit light on details, e.g. it
> > doesn't explicitly state that:
> > 
> >   - Multiple Co-developed-by tags are perfectly acceptable
> >   - Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by must be paired together
> >   - SOB ordering should still follow standard sign-off procedure
> > 
> > Lack of explicit direction has resulted in developers taking a variety
> > of approaches, often lacking any intent whatsoever, e.g. scattering SOBs
> > willy-nilly, collecting them all at the end or the beginning, etc...
> > Tweak the wording to make it clear that multiple co-authors are allowed,
> > and document the expectation that standard sign-off procedures are to
> > be followed.
> > 
> > The use of "original author" has also led to confusion as many patches
> > don't have just one "original" author, e.g. when multiple developers
> > are involved from the genesis of the patch.  Remove all usage of
> > "original" and instead call out that Co-developed-by is simply a way to
> > provide attribution in addition to the From tag, i.e. neither tag is
> > intended to imply anything with regard to who did what.
> > 
> > Provide examples to (hopefully) eliminate any ambiguity.
> 
> Please add the checkpatch bit to this at the same time.

Doh, spaced on that.  I'll wait for additional feedback before sending v5.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists